Oh Those Pesky (not hockey) Senators

Well the auditors are done with at least three of our Senators.  They met with two of them and the third, Mike Duffy was apparently far too busy to meet with them or even bother to send them the paperwork they requested.

Maybe their request was too confusing.  However Duffy did let them know as they were wrapping things up that he was open to a meeting.  The Senate subcommittee decided they didn’t need Mike anyhow.  The auditors had pieced together his attendance and where he was by using his cell phone records and the records from his Government Issue Amex Card.

I saw the news gathering on TV.  It was Conservative Senate Leader Marjory LaBreton came out to make her statement to the media.  She seemed a bit disappointed that the Liberal side of the Senate weren’t ready to put this all behind them and wanted more time to consider the matter.  Ms. LaBreton seems to feel that if the money is repaid then there is no harm and no fouls.

Some of the media pushed her on that, pointing out that if they were over claiming on their expenses they wouldn’t have their jobs very long.  She seemed noncommittal when asked about whether the RCMP would be called.  If the police want to investigate it’s their call, not the Senate’s it seems.

So what have we got?  Conservative Senator Mike Duffy says he was confused and paid the money back, even the per diems he received when he was in Florida and not eligible for.  He blames a temp in his office, but he signed for it.  Apparently Mike doesn’t bother to read things that are put in front of him to sign.

Former Conservative and now independent Senator Brazeau isn’t saying anything.  He’s in enough trouble as it is, he’s probably smart for keeping his mouth shut.

Former Liberal and now independent Senator Mac Harb is going to fight this.  He thinks he has done nothing wrong.  I disagree, but at least he’s standing behind what he did, and if he loses his case then he’ll pay back the money with even more interest.  That is if he loses.

The bottom line is that out of 105 Senators 101 appear to be following the rules, well at least they’re not being investigated.  The auditors and the subcommittee are done with three of them and we’re still waiting to hear on Senator Pamela Wallin. 

But just when you think things can’t get any weirder… the reports on Brazeau and Harb say the rules about residency are unambiguous but that section gets left out of the report on Duffy.  How odd the only one who claims he was confused is not told how clear the rules are.  You’d think that would be the other way around, wouldn’t you?

Look, if you or I were to pull these kinds of games on our employers, we’d be on the street looking for a new job if we were lucky… we might just as likely be charged with fraud.  I don’t care if they are greedy or just thick, ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Taking money you are not entitled to is a crime for citizens and it should be for Senators too.

When I was watching the press conference with Marjory LaBreton, I heard her say one thing that I have to agree with… there is no honour in the Senate.

Imagine that, I’m agreeing with a Conservative…

…and I’m usually the one defending the Senate…

I need a beer.

Cheers! BC

This just in… Liberal Senator James Cowan is saying that the RCMP is indeed interested in examining the expenses of three Senators.  Is this the same RCMP the Senate was chastising this past week?  It could get interesting…

BC

Harper wades in on the Senate’s Residency question… Did he get it wrong?

I read on the Global Toronto New site that Stephen Harper has put to rest the allegations that some Senators may not be eligible to sit in the Senate…

Questions have been raised as to whether they spend sufficient time in their home provinces or territory to meet the constitutional residency requirement. "All senators conform to the residency requirements," Harper told the House of Commons. "That is the basis on which they are appointed to the Senate and those requirements have been clear for 150 years." Global Toronto link to story

The story goes on to say

A government official said Harper interprets the residency requirement to mean that senators must "own residences and maintain deep ties" to their home province. Global Toronto link to story

There is just one problem.  He’s got it wrong.

There is nothing in the Constitution about “deep ties” and the part about “own residences” is only part of the story.  To refresh your memory I’ll provide you with a snippet from the British North America Act of 1867 (BNA).

23   The Qualifications of a Senator shall he as follows: … (5)He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed: (6)In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division. UK Legislation web site

I’ve included both section 5 and 6 for a reason.  In Quebec, 65 of the Senators are named from Electoral Divisions.  In Quebec, the Senator must wither be resident in that Electoral Division or can hold property in that Division.  This shows that simply owning property in a Jurisdiction does not automatically make you resident in that Jurisdiction.

Section 5 would also cover Senators from Quebec the same as any other Province.  Note the wording “shall be resident in”, doesn’t that strike you as an odd way of wording the Qualification?

These parts of the BNA still stand as written all those years ago.

I was puzzled by the words “be resident in”.  It is a simple Qualification rule.  You must live in the Province you represent, so why the strange wording.

This phrase, while unusual in Canada is still used in the UK today.  Citizens of the Commonwealth are permitted to vote in the elections there if they are resident in the UK.  They have lived there long enough to be considered  resident.  Under their tax laws, if you are a citizen of the UK but do not spend enough time there (183 days in a year) you are not considered resident in the UK and the way you are taxed may change.

The issue is not about “residency” per se, but are the Senators “resident in” their given Provinces.  That is the $64 question.  If you live in Ontario, have and Ontario Driver’s Licence and OHIP card, if you pay your taxes to Ontario, can you sit as a Senator from some other Province?  From what I’ve read, there are a few Senators “from” some Provinces who appear to actually be “resident in” other Provinces.

This is what the Senate needs to clear up.

I was born in Ontario and have lived in Ontario my whole life.  If I were to move to another Province, set up housekeeping there and get my Health Card and Driver’s Licence there, would I still be eligible to sit as a Senator from Ontario?  Stephen Harper says yes, as long as I hold property in Ontario and “maintain ties” with Ontario which could mean I visit my family for Christmas I guess or that I stay in touch and occasionally visit friends there.

But my actions state otherwise.  By taking out a Health Card and Driver’s Licence I signal my intention to reside in my new Province, to be resident in that new Province.  If I don’t intend on becoming a resident in that new Province, there are steps I can take with the Province of Ontario to remain an Ontarian.

Alas, I’m wrong.

CBC news is reporting that Mike Duffy is eligible to sit in the Senate.  The legal advice that the Senate sought has come through and by merely signing a document you can be the Senator for “your” Province.

Read the story here: CBC News, Duffy Declared Eligible

Please, go read the story, and while you are there, read the Declaration that the “Senator” will have to sign.  I’ve read it twice.

If you can find where in the Declaration it says that the Senator “is resident in” or any other words that state residency please point it out to me.

It ain’t there kids.

The fix is in… maybe I should move to Beartopia, it’s nice there this time of year, and there is no Harper Party there either.

BC