PARTY’S OVER

Senate expense scrutiny a warning to all politicians.

Postmedia News reports that the intensity of the detail being sought by Auditor-General Michael Ferguson in his examination of Senate spending has senators

feeling decidedly nervous.

Mr. Ferguson’s auditors, the report says, have been drilling deep down into spending habits, even those traditionally taken for granted. One senator was asked about the postage on three Christmas cards sent to the United States. Another was asked to prove details of a lunch, even after producing

a receipt. Others have been quizzed on mileage claims, and whether the event was necessary, or in fact really involved Senate business.

Nervous at the implications of such close scrutiny, Senate members are already getting their excuses in line. Should senators be blamed if (as has been indicated) the rules were imprecise and members crossed the line without intending to? Is it their fault if long-accepted practices are now viewed in a negative light? Should they all be subject to the opprobrium that will follow if a significant group is found to have abused the rules, or if more cases are referred to the RCMP?

“In the eyes of the public, all too often, they assume anybody investigated by the RCMP is guilty,” noted former Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, whose last six months in the Senate are subject to the audit.

The blame game aside, the evident extent of Mr. Ferguson’s investigation is good news. Few would disagree that it’s long past time that political figures should have their privileges cut. Despite repeated embarrassments, resignations, firings and ruined careers, politicians have been slow to give up the perks they deem their rights as occupants of public office. Few seem capable of resisting the lure of the trough once they are exposed to its offerings. Much of the Western

Senators protesting an audit of their spending show how strong their sense of entitlement remains

world now wonders how Rob Ford could ever have been elected mayor of Toronto. It was easy: he promised to stop the gravy train. People were that fed up.

Practices that have long since been deemed unacceptable in the private sector continue apace in the “public service.” The past year has been rich in examples. Apart from the Senate itself, former Alberta premier Alison Redford’s downfall and personal humiliation resulted from spending habits so egregious they shocked her own party, which now fears the taint of her actions could result in its own ouster from office after more than 40 years. The city of Brampton, a bedroom community west of Toronto, voted to send police a 96-page audit that found Mayor Susan Fennell had violated spending rules 265 times, including with respect to jewellery, mobile phone IQ tests and expensive travel. The mayor allegedly preferred buying flexible airline passes that made it easy to change dates, even though they cost far more than simple tickets.

What’s most disturbing about these abuses is not that they continue to exist, but that practitioners seem unable to grasp the extent of the offence they committed, or the violation of public trust. Even as she was driven from the party Ms. Redford could not bring herself to apologize or accept blame, other than to concede “mistakes were made.” Mayor Fennell mocked a fellow councillor who urged the matter be sent to police.

Maybe someone will have to go to prison before the message gets through, though even that may not prove enough. Political leaders have proven so adept at blinkering themselves in the past that it’s foolish to assume they are capable of learning from experience. While they struggle towards that realization, though, Canadians should help them along by demanding that the level of scrutiny now being applied to the Senate become the norm. No senator, MP, MLA, city council member, mayor or reeve, for that matter, should be surprised when asked to produce proof an expense claim was in legitimate pursuit of public business, and couldn’t have been achieved at a lesser cost. Postage may seem a minor — and outdated — cost, but that does not justify its abuse. Rather than assuming expense claims are justified unless specifically forbidden, legislators should expect to pay their own costs unless clear rules free them from the need. And those self-serving bodies set up to protect them from public scrutiny, such as the Board of Internal Economy that oversees the House of Commons, should be open to public scrutiny, including access to any expenditure of pubic funds.

There shouldn’t even be a debate about any of this. The fact that anyone in Ottawa would still protest at being asked to justify their spending shows how deeply the sense of entitlement remains ingrained. It’s time to rip it up by the roots. Mr. Ferguson should continue to press ever deeper in his investigation, no matter how much it frightens or upsets senators.