Clean up, don’t abolish, the Senate
If Thomas Mulcair was hoping that the longawaited release of auditor general Michael Ferguson’s report into Senate expenses would put the provinces in an abolitionist mood, he got a rude awakening on Wednesday.
Alarm bells started ringing in Quebec almost immediately after the NDP leader declared that he would “work non-stop” to do away with what he perceives as a wasteful and overly entitled upper chamber, and would be “seeking a clear mandate from the Canadian voting public” on the issue during the federal election campaign later this year.
Premier Philippe Couillard rightly dismissed Mulcair’s plans as ill-advised. Couillard’s objection: Abolition — which the NDP has supported for many years — would further reduce Quebecers’ influence in Ottawa as the province’s population declines. Representation in the House of Commons is based on population, whereas Senate seats are allocated on a regional basis. But there is an additional reason why Couillard’s stance on this issue is in the best interests of Quebecers, and really, of all Canadians.
Abolishing the Senate would require — and the Supreme Court has been clear on this point — the approval of all provinces and a new round of constitutional negotiations. Any plan to create an elected Senate would need the approval of seven provinces with half the population, something that seems equally unlikely. There is currently no consensus among the provinces, and reopening the Constitution would inevitably lead to haggling over other, far more intractable issues like the question of Quebec’s distinctiveness, with a resulting toll on national unity.
The worst offenders ‘simply felt they didn’t have to account for, or they didn’t have to be transparent, with their spending.’
It’s just not worth it. So, whither the Senate? Well, certainly not to the trash heap, but not down the same road it has been on, either. Measures certainly need to be taken to address issues exposed by Ferguson, who found that a small minority of senators dipped into the public purse for family-related expenses, travel per-diems that were not justified, and, in one notable case, to get a staffer to drive a personal car from Ottawa to Halifax. Perhaps most damning was the auditor general’s comment that the worst offenders “simply felt they didn’t have to account for, or they didn’t have to be transparent, with their spending,”
It is unacceptable that a senator earning a base salary of $142,400 should feel entitled to charge the taxpayer for travel that was really for personal reasons. While the vast majority of senators are hard-working and responsible when it comes to expenses, there are clearly a few who should be called to account for their behaviour.
What the chamber of “sober second thought” requires is better training to ensure that those senators whose own judgment is deficient are made understand the rules, and — most critically — greater oversight. An independent body to approve expenses and full disclosure of expenses would be a good start.
Beyond this, however, a broader cultural shift is needed, with senators getting back to their intended roles as independent representatives of Canada’s diverse regions, not extensions of the political parties in the House of Commons. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau took a step in the right direction when he expelled 32 senators from his caucus. The Senate’s leadership has, thus far, seemed reluctant to implement Ferguson’s recommendations. But profound change is vital if they hope to regain the confidence of a thoroughly disgusted public.