The Senate has hired an outside auditor to examine the residency declarations and related expenses of three senators, and is also seeking legal advice about the status of Conservative Senator Mike Duffy's residency.
Conservative Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the committee on internal economy, says the Senate may look at changing its own rules about residency and submitting expenses.One of the problems, he says, is that the constitutional requirement that a senator be a "resident' of the province he or she represents does not define what is meant by the word."The constitution is quite nebulous about this. It says residence, it doesn't say primary residence," Tkachuk said in a telephone interview Friday from his residence in Saskatoon.The Constitution requires that every senator own property and maintain a residence in the province he or she is supposed to represent in the Senate.Tkackuk also said the Senate is looking to an outside auditor, in this case Deloitte, because the Senate doesn't want to appear as if it is hiding anything by having its own members conduct the probe.The other two senators are Liberal Mac Harb of Ontario and Quebec's Patrick Brazeau, who has just been criminally charged in a completely separate matter. Brazeau is now sitting as an independent after being kicked out of Conservative caucus Thursday.

'It's a different world'

The three senators have been under fire lately for claiming expenses for residences outside Ottawa even though they own or rent homes, in some cases doing so for years, in the capital.Duffy, although he claims a cottage in P.E.I. is his residence, doesn't pay income tax in the province and only applied for a new P.E.I. health card following media stories that detailed how he has owned his home in Ottawa well before he was appointed to the Senate.Harb, a former Ottawa MP and now an Ontario senator, claims his residence is actually in Pembroke, 100 kilometres from Ottawa, where he has a house.Brazeau, now facing assault charges in a separate incident, has been claiming his father's home in Maniwaki, Que. — again more than 100 kilometres from Ottawa — as his residence, even though he lives in a house in Gatineau, just across the river from the capital.All three senators have been claiming expenses for living in Ottawa, or in Brazeau's case, in Gatineau, a virtual stone's throw from Parliament.Tkachuk explained the rules were changed in the '90s so that senators could submit expenses for a house or a condo which he said, "had to be a lot cheaper than a hotel."He continued, "Even though Mike's [Duffy's] expenses are 30 or 35,000 bucks [since his 2009 appointment], they're only $10,000 a year, which is a lot cheaper than I spend — I stay in a hotel. So they have a small subsidy for buying a house, because some people are older, they have health problems, they can't fly back every week."Tkachuk said the subsidy for a house or condo in Ottawa amounts to $900 a month, and it's meant to substitute for hotel costs. He assumes this is what Duffy has been collecting.
Tkachuk didn't seem to have a problem with Duffy's expense claim, and explained that Duffy visits P.E.I. frequently and has a residence there. "Whether he closes the place up for the winter... If I was Mike I wouldn't be travelling back and forth either, because his heart condition is not that great. I wouldn't be getting on a plane, trying to get to Charlottetown every week."Retired senator Lowell Murray, who was appointed by Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative government, said in an interview for CBC Radio's The House (to be aired Saturday), "Senator Duffy's problem is not just an ethical problem potentially and a problem with the Senate rules. Potentially, his problem is a serious constitutional problem because if it can be demonstrated he is not a resident in Prince Edward Island, then he's finished, he's a goner, he's been sitting while he's disqualified. "Duffy does not pay the resident-only property tax for his house in P.E.I., but instead pays a special tax for non-residents. But Tkachuk said, "P.E.I. says he's not a resident. Well, as far as I'm concerned, those are the provincial provisions of residency, they have nothing to do with the Constitution."
Tkachuk admits he's not happy about the negative publicity the Senate has been getting lately, and added, "Our intent is not to hide anything."He went on to say, "It's a different world — rules that made sense a long time ago don't necessarily make sense today."

A legal or moral issue?

Al Rosen, a Toronto investigative accountant, said in an interview that it's difficult to know whether Duffy's and the other senators' residency is a legal or a moral issue. He thinks Duffy has possibly found a loophole in the rules."The real problem is the definition of residency ... the definition has to exist. You can't just say just because he [Duffy,for instance] only has three plane tickets going to P.E.I., there's something wrong, that he doesn't meet the definition that doesn't exit. So the defintion has to exist," Rosen said.Talking to reporters Friday, NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice said he thinks the expenses issue "will convince Canadians that maybe the Senate is a bad institution and it’s costly and it’s not working anymore."The NDP advocates that the Senate be abolished.Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner dodged the question of whether the Senate should be done away with."You know, we’re looking at a government that, that bodes, you know, prides itself in law and order and playing by the rules and accountability and transparency and one of their own seems to be, you know, taking such a flagrant abuse of, of the rules," he said.Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking to reporters in Vancouver where he made an announcement about crime, admitted there were "a couple of cases that are extremely difficult" when asked about his Senate appointments. Harper appointed both Duffy and Brazeau.Harper said he would prefer if provinces would hold elections for senators, as Alberta has. "I have appointed those elected people. And that's the reform we'd like to continue to see move forward, along with defined and shortened mandates," he said.

40 per cent of Canadians want a reformed Senate, 31 per cent want it abolished: Forum Research poll

'While the appetite for Senate reform is not overwhelming, it exceeds the interest in abolition, so we may have the Red Chamber to kick around for a while longer,' Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told The Hill Times.

The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright
Only 14 per cent of Canadians believe the Senate should remain as is, according to a Forum Research poll.
By TIM NAUMETZ |
Published: Friday, 02/08/2013 4:26 pm EST
PARLIAMENT HILL—In the wake of the latest controversies involving allegations of wrongdoing by Senators, including two appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a new poll shows Canadians who want an elected Senate outnumber those who want it abolished it entirely.But, even though only 14 per cent of respondents said the Senate should be left as it is, the Forum Research survey suggests if Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) succeeds in his Supreme Court of Canada quest to take incremental steps toward an elected Senate, the political turmoil could be significant.The survey of 1,091 voting age Canadians on Feb. 7, found 40 per cent of respondents favoured an elected Senate, with an outright majority only in Alberta, where 55 per cent said they supported the idea.A full 31 per cent across Canada said they want the Senate to be abolished, a longstanding NDP position that—depending on the result of Mr. Harper’s request last week for an opinion on constitutional questions about Senate reform from the Supreme Court—could be impossible.The federal government believes abolition would require unanimous agreement from all 10 provinces and the abolition option was included in the government’s Supreme Court reference to flush out the NDP, a Conservative said to The Hill Times this week.The reference was filed in the Supreme Court in the late afternoon of Feb. 1, by Justice Department lawyers representing Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.) in his capacity as Attorney General on behalf of the government.The Forum Research poll, an interactive voice response telephone survey with a margin of error of plus or minus three per cent 19 times out of 20, found opinion about the Senate had not changed even one percentage point from an identical poll Forum Research conducted in January, 2012.“While the appetite for Senate reform is not overwhelming, it exceeds the interest in abolition, so we may have the Red Chamber to kick around for a while longer,” Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told The Hill Times.The survey was taken on the same day that CTV reported Quebec Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau had used his father’s address on a First Nation reserve north of Ottawa in Quebec to claim an aboriginal income tax exemption from 2004 to 2008, when he led a national lobby group for aboriginal Canadians living off of federal reserves. CTV had earlier reported questions about Sen. Brazeau’s claims for $21,000 a year in Senate travel expenses, including accommodation, while in Ottawa. CTV cited documents from a Revenue Quebec order forcing Brazeau to pay more than $4,000 in arrears for child support.On Thursday morning, shocking news emerged that Sen. Brazeau had been arrested after a 911 domestic violence call at a house in Gatineau, Que. He was held in jail overnight and charged with sexual assault and assault early Friday and is scheduled to appear in court again on March 22.Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy, another star Senate appointment by Mr. Harper, is also in hot water over his claims for travel allowances while in Ottawa. Sen. Duffy, who represents Prince Edward Island and owns what has been described as a cottage near the tourist mecca of Cavendish, P.E.I., recently asked the P.E.I. provincial government to expedite his request for a provincial health card as he, Sen. Brazeau and Ottawa Liberal Sen. Mac Harb came under Senate scrutiny for evidence of their primary residences. P.E.I. media have reported Mr. Duffy is paying lower seasonal property taxes on his Cavendish property that do not cover full year-round garbage collection services.Despite more than a month of intermittent but sensational news coverage of the Senators, Liberal MP Roger Cuzner (Cape Breton-Canso, N.S.) was cautious when, during a news scrum after Question Period on Friday, he was asked whether it was time to reform the Senate or abolish it.“Next question,” Mr. Cuzner quipped after at first being asked whether he favoured abolition, a prospect that P.E.I. university professor Peter McKenna told The Hill Times this week would be “toxic” in Atlantic Canada, which has 30 Senate seats, and would divide the country along regional lines.The Senate has 105 seats compared to the 308 House of Commons seats, with 24 Senate seats divided equally between B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which combined have a population of 10.2 million compared to the population of 2.3 million in the four Atlantic Canadian provinces.Quebec and Ontario each have 24 Senate seats, while the three northern territories have one seat each.With those numbers by region, critics say an elected Senate with the same powers as the current unelected Senate would dramatically shift the balance of power in Ottawa and lead to inevitable impasse. A report this week quoted Conservative Senator Bert Brown saying Mr. Harper was considering a further constitutional amendment to reign in Senate powers for blocking Commons bills, but Kate Davis, communications director for Minister of State for Democratic Reform Tim Uppal (Edmonton-Sherwood Park, Alta.) told The Hill Times the report “does not accurately reflect the views of the government.”
“The path forward is the reference to the Supreme Court, and a term-limited Senate selected through democratic processes,” Ms. Davis said in an email.On the recent Senate controversy, Mr. Cuzner said: “There is a certain degree of it where they have to govern themselves as well. Anybody who has been around this place long enough, they understand that there’s all kinds of quality work that the Senate performs and has done over the years.”Mr. Cuzner said the Senate serves a “great role” and that there are only “one or two bad apples” that emerge every few years.“This has been an epidemic it seems, of late,” he said. “I continue to think there is a role for the Senate, but they certainly haven’t done themselves any favour with the actions of these three or four Senators.”The Forum Research poll found support for an elected Senate was highest among respondents aged 35 to 44, at 45 per cent, and preference for abolition highest among those aged over 55, at an average of 38 per cent.By region and province, Atlantic Canadians were evenly split at 35 per cent for an elected Senate and abolition. Quebec also was evenly divided with 33 per cent in favour of an elected chamber and 32 per cent supporting abolition.In Ontario, 39 per cent of respondents favoured an elected Senate, compared to 31 per cent who wanted it abolished.In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, old NDP heartlands, 40 per cent were in favour of abolition and only 33 per cent supported an elected Senate. In Alberta, with the majority in favour of an elected Senate, only 25 per cent favoured abolition. Opinion was similar in B.C., where 45 per cent of respondents wanted an elected Senate and 27 per cent were in favour of abolition.Quebec had the highest support for leaving the Senate as it is, at 19 per cent.The government has asked the Supreme Court for an opinion on whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to pass legislation enabling the federal government to consult voters in each province, often called a consultative election or nominee election, for nominees to fill vacant Senate seats in their provinces. The government also asked the Supreme Court whether Parliament has the authority to establish a framework for provinces to pass their own legislation allowing consultative elections for nominees to fill Senate vacancies, as Alberta has done since 1987.The prime minister now nominates Senate appointees for approval by Cabinet and the Governor General or the Queen.The government also asked whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to limit Senate terms, in a range from eight to 10 years or for two or three Parliaments, eliminate a $4,000 property requirement for Senate appointments, and whether abolition of the Senate could be done with the consent of Parliament, including the Senate, and seven provinces that include more than 50 per cent of Canada’s population.If that amending formula, set out in the Constitution Act for major changes to the constitution, is not sufficient to abolish the Senate, the government asked whether unanimous agreement is required.Experts have said the Supreme Court could take between 18 and 24 months to render an opinion, which would mean either 2014 or 2015, the next federal election year under fixed-election law introduced by Mr. Harper’s government.tnaumetz@hilltimes.com The Hill Times