Could Senator Grant Mitchell's prediction be coming true?
In October 2012, the Liberal senator from Alberta, suggested a hike in pension contributions for MPs and senators could push some of his colleagues into a life of crime.
Before the legislation passed, Parliamentarians kicked in $11,000 per year to their pensions and taxpayers ponied up $64,000. Now they pay $39,000. Mitchell saw that as a $28,000 pay cut, the pressure of which, he feared, could cause some upper and lower house members to be unable to resist the temptation of taking bribes to supplement their meager base incomes of $157, 731 (MPs) and $132,300 (senators).
"If one gets here and has that mortgage and a couple of kids in university, or one ends up getting a chance to go to Harvard that one had not anticipated, the furnace blows up, the car breaks down, a new one must be bought, one cannot opt out. One cannot stop paying that 25 per cent of one's pay because we are all locked in, period," he said.
Or, maybe it's not taking bribes, maybe it's fraudulently claiming living expenses to which they're not entitled?
For the past couple of weeks, two senators-Conservatives Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau-have been under fire over where they live. Senators are required to live in the jurisdictions they represent and as such are entitled to collect a living allowance of up to $21,000 per year while they are in Ottawa.
Duffy has claimed $42, 802 since September 2010.The Opposition, of course, is calling for blood.
"Duffy doesn't even qualify for the income tax reduction on residency, and when was the last time he actually mentioned the great people of Prince Edward Island in the Senate?" said NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus. "It has to be at least seven months, which is why the people of Cavendish call him Mike Who?
"The issue is that he's claiming that he's a resident of Prince Edward Island, and it seems to be a pretty dubious claim, the same way Mr. Brazeau's claim seems to be very dubious and the same way [as] Mr. Mac Harb."
"This is taxpayers' money. These guys are set for life until they're 75. There's no accountability, you can't fire them. And if they're making these claims and they can't back it up, then there should be penalties and they should have to pay every cent back."
Those are all good arguments, but for me, what has been missing from this uproar has been any mention of criminality.
I am not a lawyer, and I may be wrong, but Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada reads in part:
(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars.
So, if these senators are lying about where they live in order to get money from taxpayers, does that not fit the criminal code definition above?
Once the Senate finishes its audit, and if they find any wrongdoing, I certainly hope Angus, and others, will be asking that question.
Citizens are citizens
It has been apparent for some time that the Harper government has no respect for the justice system. Now, it is becoming apparent the Conservatives have no respect for the Constitution either.
On face value, immigration minister Jason Kenney's suggestion that Canada should consider revoking citizenship from people who commit acts of terror is popular, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Canadians, regardless of how they became citizens are entitled to the full protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That includes the presumption of innocence. Until a citizen has had his day in court-in Canada, not some kangaroo court in the Middle East of Africa-there is no discussion to be had. It is the law of our land.
Kenney's suggestion is disgraceful.
