Senate looks for a way forward on expenses after years of scandal

Many senators who lived through the auditor general's recent review of expenses say the process cost too much and took too long but the next step could be trying, too, as senators argue over the best way to keep an eye on expenses without racking up huge costs.

The2013-15 audit of senators' expenses led by auditor general Michael Ferguson cost some $23.6 million butfound arelatively paltry $600,000 in ineligible expenses. (The annual budget for the Senate is just north of $100 million a year.)

The review, which examined every expensesenators incurred over a two-year period, was a "colossal waste of money," in the eyes of Liberal Sen. Percy Downe, with a poor "return on investment."

• THE CURRENT |How independent is the Senate under JustinTrudeau'srule?
• Mike Duffy is suing the Senate, federal government for $8M

Conservative Sen. Elizabeth Marshall, herself a former provincial auditor in Newfoundland and Labrador, recently said the whole affair was "so painful" in part because the auditor generaldidn't use "sampling" to find a pattern of abuse.

Despite those misgivings, the Red Chamber is now reviewing some of the recommendations the auditor generalmade with respect to expensesand oversight, in a bid to avoid future scandal.

Members of the Senate'spowerful internal economy committee, as well asother members of the upper house, are determined to turn the pagebut also say they want to make sure any process implemented isworthwhile. The Senate has already beefed up public disclosure, posting quarterly expense reports online and publishing details of service contracts, the likes of which putSen. Mike Duffy in the spotlight.

The House of Commons, by comparison, is much more secretive about spending.

But to really move forward, the Senate will have to wrestle with one of the auditor general'skey findings namely that senators should allow independent officers to rule on the validity of expense claims.

This has tossed senators, who have long sought to be masters of their own house, into adebate over just how much authority they should forfeit.

'Ahigh-wire act'

Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate, is eager to implement changes the auditor general called for, citing what he sees as inherent flaws with the current structure.

"Faced with such an inadequate system, the public may be forgiven its cynicism ... In my view, to meet the expectations of Canadians, it is crucial that this new body have a majority of external members and a minority of senators,"herecently wroteinPolicy Options.

• OPINION|'Not full of criminals' is a pretty pathetic baseline for Senate credibility

Harder, who was appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, believes it's possible tomeet the imperative of independent oversightwhile respecting the Senate's right to self-governance.

"While this may be a high-wire act, it is achievable," he wrote.

But many senators bristle at the thought of outsiders holding that much power, deciding just how much they can and cannot spend.

"We have to do the right thing, but there has to be a balance, we have to be realistic," Downe said at the internal economy committee's recent meeting on the issueof Senate expenses.

"Having experienced the AG's office in full flight, they did not come down from the mountain with recommendations that are beyond question. We have to take them with a big grain of salt given what they did to Canadian taxpayers when they did the audit of the Senate."

Policing expenses expensive?

A major problem is that the act of policingexpenses canbe expensive.

For example, the Senate ethics officer, who investigates conflicts of interest and ethical lapses, was allocated $1 million last year to pursue a handful of inquiries. The appointment of an independent auditor could cost a similar sum, if not more.

There is also a widely held belief that while some independent oversight would be welcomed, the Senate does not have to accept the auditor general's prescription to the letter.

Independent Sen. Grant Mitchell, who serves as Harder's deputy, is looking for a sort of compromise. He prefers a committee where outsiders hold a majority, but said he also wants the Senate to retain the right to reject its findings on expenses if it so chooses.

The Senate's subcommittee on estimates, chaired by Conservative Sen. David Wells, will study the issue, and propose a way forward. Recommendations are due byOct. 26.

"Of course, there's a cohort of senators that don't want to give up full independence, because we're a self-governing body," Wells told CBC News.

But he said an oversight body doesn't have to deal exclusively with wrongdoing, or policing travel expenses (which make up only $4 million of the Senate's total budget).

Wells favours oversight that focuses on the entirety of the Senate's spending, from committee work, to procurement, to the cost of losing senior staff with institutional knowledge, to purchasingservices and signing contracts.

"Let's not put any redundant layers in place that aren't necessary," he said.

"But perhaps, there's a more efficient way to spend taxpayers money on the things the Senate is required to do by the Constitution. Let's look at that as well. Let's look at the full package of what the Senate does, and find ways for it to be more efficiently spent."