September 3, 2015


Heat warning in effect

Editorials

Senators playing the system

If everyone is abusing the system, is it really an abuse? That might well have been the attitude of senators who said they resided in another province while claiming living expenses for homes or apartments in Ottawa.

As we know now, some senators didn't spend enough time in their nominal home provinces to qualify as residents, meaning their real residence was in Ottawa or somewhere close, which makes sense, since that is where they work.

DALE CUMMINGS / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

In an interview when the controversy over his expense claims erupted last month, Senator Mike Duffy said very few of his colleagues actually met the requirements that entitle them to claim living expenses for residing outside the provinces they represent.

That's assuming the normal rules for determining residency were used. In most provinces, including Manitoba, a person is considered a resident and entitled to a health card if they live there 183 days a year. The timeline for a driver's licence is about three months.

Senator Pamela Wallin, for example, has steadfastly claimed her home is in Saskatchewan, but she never disclosed if she held a health card or driver's licence in that province. Is she a resident of Saskatchewan, or Ontario?

Well, maybe it shouldn't matter, so long as she and the other senators under scrutiny made frequent trips to the province they represent.

If it didn't matter, however, then Senator Duffy would not have repaid $90,000 in living expenses for his real residence in Ottawa, while masquerading as the senator from Prince Edward Island. His only authentic living expense, arguably, could have been for the cottage he owned on the island and not for his home in Ottawa.

The problem is the rules don't actually define residency. It should be more than a notional or emotional link to a past life. This, of course, is a problem not just for the Senate, but for the House of Commons, too.

The RCMP are probing the Senator Duffy case, while ethics investigators are looking into other incidents of suspect spending in the Senate. The auditor general's authority and expertise are needed, however, to determine what abuses, if any, have occurred, and to clarify the rules.

The disturbing part is that at least some senators knew they were playing the system, and that it needed to be reformed. Not one of them, however -- not one -- said a word.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 5, 2013 A8

Editorials are the consensus view of the Winnipeg Free Press’ editorial board composed of Catherine Mitchell, David O’Brien, Shannon Sampert, and Paul Samyn.

Editorials are the consensus view of the Winnipeg Free Press’ editorial board composed of Catherine Mitchell, David O’Brien, Shannon Sampert, and Paul Samyn.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective January 2015.

Scroll down to load more

Top