Senate expense scandal: A failure of leadership PART II

Last week, in the wake of a damming audit report on the abuse of expenses by Conservative and Liberal Senators – calling for the repayment of almost $200,000 in expenses these Senators claimed but were not entitled to – Conservatives tried to redefine what leadership on accountability actually means.

Lurching from one excuse to another, Conservatives vainly attempted to spin a defence for their rule breaking:

"… the rules in place were not clear.” – Stephen Harper, May 9, 2013 "… the rules were not clear.” – Peter Van Loan, May 9, 2013 "…there is a ‘lack of clarity’ in the Senate’s rules and definitions with regard to residency and housing allowances.” – Mike Duffy, May 9, 2013

Why does this all sound familiar?

"…the Senate rules on housing allowances aren't clear, and the forms are confusing." – Mike Duffy, February 22, 2013

And how complicated is this form? Well, you have to choose between the two following options:

□ My primary residence is within 100 kilometers from Parliament Hill □ My primary residence is more than 100 kilometers from Parliament Hill

According to a quick Google maps search, Kanata is 25 kilometers from Parliament Hill. And yet we are supposed to believe this form confounded these Senators, so that they filled out inaccurate expense reports for years.

The rules are clear, the forms are clear and if you really can’t identify where you live without a lawyer, how could you possibly call yourself competent enough to review and draft legislation, including budget bills?

Despite this, Conservatives choose to extoll Mr. Duffy’s rule-breaking behaviour as showing “leadership,” and even the Prime Minister got into the act, vigorously defending this abuse of taxpayers’ hard earned money.

Canadians deserve better.