It’s interesting that questions around senators’ actual residency status are emerging now.
After all, it’s hard to believe the phenomenon of senators with tenuous residency links to the provinces they represent began with the appointments of Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, Mac Harb, and Dennis Patterson. Prime ministers have long used the Senate as a patronage dumping ground for the Ottawa political class, so it’s inevitable there have been lots of previous appointments of people who live full-time in one province but own property elsewhere.
The issues in the latest controversy centre largely on the meaning of the residency requirement for senators. Does being a resident require them to simply own property in the province they represent and, presumably, spend lots of time there or do the rules mean they must be residents in the full legal sense with driver’s licences and health cards from their Senate jurisdiction along with their income taxes filed there?
Last week, the Senate said merely owning property was good enough. But the controversy is an opportunity to refine the rules further.
The issue, of course, involves constitutional questions, which makes it a difficult area to resolve. But given the Senate’s lack of legitimacy as a patronage dumping ground, it would be wise for the government to embrace stricter rules that would require residency in the full sense.
Emphasizing a more stringent requirement would bolster the notion of senators truly representing their home provinces and may be a simpler area for Senate reform than the government’s current bid for an elected body.
With the federal government already referring its plans for an elected Senate with term limits to the Supreme Court, the question of residency could be another issue to ask the judges about. The government claims it wants to bolster the Senate’s legitimacy through its own reform plans, so this would be another way of accomplishing that.
When it comes to restoring credibility, however, Wallin, and particularly Duffy, will have lots of work to do. As former journalists, they’ve been especially hypocritical in admonishing reporters for their inquiries and shying away from answering questions. In their previous careers, of course, they would have been the ones asking the questions and pointing out their frustrations in not getting answers. It’s interesting to see how their approach has changed when they’re on the other side of the microphone.
—
Glenn Kauth
