Stephen Harper could have avoided Mike Duffy woes by obeying the law

Poor Stephen Harper. If the prime minister had only followed the law, his life would be so much simpler.

The law in question is the Constitution Act of 1867. Specifically, it is that portion of the act that requires a senator to be “resident in the province for which he is appointed.”

If Harper had bothered to follow the law in 2009, he never would have appointed Mike Duffy to represent Prince Edward Island in the Senate — for the simple reason that the television journalist didn’t, under any stretch of the imagination, live in that province.

Duffy lived — and still lives — in Ottawa, Ontario.

If, back in 2009, Harper had felt Duffy’s presence in Parliament was crucial to the running of the country, he could have awarded him an Ontario Senate seat. At least four came open that year.

And if that had happened — if Duffy’s appointment had been legal and proper from the start — the senator and prime minister would almost certainly not now find themselves embroiled in a housing expense scandal that threatens the very credibility of the Conservative government.

The reason? Duffy wouldn’t have tried to claim housing allowances had it been clear from the get-go that he lived in Ottawa.

Housing allowances are provided only to those senators who live more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill. They are designed to cover temporary accommodation in the capital while on Senate business.

Duffy didn’t merit such an allowance. But he was in a bind. If he admitted his permanent residence was Ottawa, his eligibility to represent P.E.I. would come into question.

This may explain the senator’s reluctance to repay $90,000 in housing expense payments that his Senate confreres said he had inappropriately claimed.

It may also explain why Duffy repaid the money only after Harper’s then chief of staff Nigel Wright agreed to cover the cost.

Indeed, if Duffy’s lawyer can be believed, the beleaguered senator agreed to accept Wright’s gift only after he was warned that failure to do so would bring the dread question of residency to the fore and result in his being turfed from the upper chamber.

Let us be clear. Senate posts have always been patronage appointments. Far too often, they are rewards for blind loyalty to the government of the day.

But most prime ministers try to stay within the law. When Conservative Joe Clark appointed the very useful Lowell Murray to the Senate, he didn’t try to claim that the Nova Scotia-born politico was a Maritimer.

Murray, now retired from the upper chamber, was appointed to represent Ontario — which is where he lived.

Similarly, when Jean Chrétien appointed former press aide Jim Munson to the Senate, he didn’t pretend that the scrappy New Brunswicker still lived in the province of his birth. Munson, who lives in Ottawa, was given an Ontario seat.

But Harper has been disturbingly blasé about legality. Duffy was the most egregious example. But there are others.

Former journalist and diplomat Pam Wallin — who faces her own expense problems — may have been a legitimate Senate pick. But not as a senator from Saskatchewan.

She may visit her birthplace frequently to see relatives; she may own a cottage there. But to all intents and purposes she lives in Toronto.

Even the qualifications of Harper stalwart Carolyn Stewart Olsen were a bit dodgy. Olsen, a former Harper press aide, was chosen as a senator from her birthplace province, New Brunswick.

But as the Huffington Post reported earlier this month, the former Ottawa resident acknowledges that, when appointed, she did not pay income tax in New Brunswick. Nor did she hold a New Brunswick health card or driver’s licence (although she told the on-line publication that all of this has been rectified and that she really does live Down East).

Stewart Olsen was too busy to return my call before press time Tuesday. In the Commons, Harper chose not to admit that he has had any regrets.

Original Article
Source: thestar.com/
Author:  Thomas Walkom