WhatFinger


If the fact a new appointee is known by all and tacitly encouraged to breach the residency requirement, does that lead to other breaches of the rules?

What the Mike Duffy trial will definitely prove



The trial of suspended Mike Duffy started in Ottawa a week ago. The Conservative appointee is facing 31 fraud and breach of trust charges that were laid in July 2014. The trial is expected to be lengthy and some in the media are calling it “the trial of the century.” Of course it isn’t but the Harper-hating media see it as a chance to help bring down Prime Minister Harper who appointed Duffy to the Upper Chamber.
Duffy is not alone when it comes to a senator being under fire for improperly claimed expenses including allegations they claimed expenses for a secondary residence in Ottawa because their principal residence was more than 100 km. from the capital. Suspended senator Patrick Brazeau is facing charges as well as former Liberal senator Mac Harb who resigned after the scandal about his expenses broke. Suspended Tory Senator Pamela Wallin has not yet been charged although the RCMP announced their investigation found alleged wrongdoing. Audits of other senators’ expenses are now underway and it is likely more senators will be accused of improper conduct related to their expenses. Duffy has hinted at his defence regarding the alleged fraud regarding his claiming expenses for a secondary residence in Ottawa—everyone knew and just looked the other way. Regardless of the outcome of the charges against Duffy, what will come out of this trial is that the legal requirements to be appointed to the Senate are at the heart of the scandal and the way both Conservative and Liberal governments have made appointments have led to the non-compliance with the rules concerning principal and secondary residences.

Support Canada Free Press


The requirements to sit in the Senate are vastly different from those to run for election as a Member of Parliament. Although there are other requirements to be an MP such as being a Canadian citizen and not in jail, a candidate must qualify as an “elector” under the Canada Elections Act in order run for office. There is no residence requirement. A person who has never been further north than Montreal or Toronto can decide to run for office in Nunavut even though they are unsure how to spell it. If elected, they are entitled to sit in Parliament and represent their riding in that territory. The requirements to sit as a senator are clearly set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 23(5) of the Act states, “He shall be resident of the province for which he is appointed.” Another requirement is the person needs to own property worth at least $4,000 in the province of their residency. For example, Duffy was appointed to represent Prince Edward Island while Wallin was appointed as a senator from Saskatchewan. Both were members of the Ottawa media class and had not really lived in their home provinces for years. Undoubtedly the requirements worked in the olden days when prospective Senators did live in the province of their appointment and the most difficult requirement was owning property worth $4,000. But all that changed. We now live in an era of professional politicians. A lot of MPs, whenever a majority government is elected that, barring unforeseen circumstances, will last at least four years, move their families to the Ottawa area and give up their principal residence in the provinces they represent. As the class of professional politicians emerged, both Conservative and Liberal governments began appointing political hacks, many of them former MPs like Harb to the Senate. Harper extended this to Duffy and Wallin who were part of the media establishment. Over the years many people were appointed to the Upper Chamber who lived in Ottawa and had very little contact with their home provinces that they were appointed to represent. The constitution could be amended to do away with the residency requirements of senators but this would be practically impossible. An amendment of the constitution that affects the entire country requires passage by the House of Commons, the Senate and at least seven provinces that represent at least 50% of the population. Given the various views of the provinces (abolish or reform it) it is unlikely this could ever happen. The problem of a Senator’s residence has existed for some time and there is little doubt it there was a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” about the fact that many Senators were not resident in the provinces for which they were appointed to represent. The “everybody does it” answer is not a defence to fraud charges but helps explain why the Senate scandal is so widespread. An interesting fact emerges from all this. If the fact a new appointee is known by all and tacitly encouraged to breach the residency requirement, does that lead to other breaches of the rules? A Senator knowingly accepting public moneys for a secondary residence, knowing it is his or her primary residence, probably leads to the view they need not account for any money they spend. The rules put in place are simply not that important. Proper Senate expenses are what the Senators decide they are. While the media is gloating over the possibility of pinning all this on Harper, the reality is it is a longstanding constitutional problem that will only go away when the constitution is amended or prime ministers restrict their appointments to people who have no connection with the capital and actually really live in the province of their appointment.


View Comments

Arthur Weinreb -- Bio and Archives

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. Arthur’s latest book, Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor is available at Amazon. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin is also available at Smashwords. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com,  Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Older articles (2007) by Arthur Weinreb


Sponsored