Article content continued

“Spending in the Senate is kind of like a black hole. We know what goes in, but we don’t know what comes out,” said Prof. David McGrane, an expert on federal politics from the University of Saskatchewan.

“Maybe all these people are all using money for legitimate public business, but maybe they aren’t – who knows? We’re entering a new era of public accountability when it comes to spending for public officials and people want to know what their publicly elected officials are spending money on.”

McGrane said that until the Senate becomes more forthcoming about the purpose of its expenses, the public will question how the largely unelected body is working for Canadians.

In a recent poll for Postmedia News, only 22 per cent of Canadians said they are content with the Senate as is; 78 per cent said they would rather see it reformed or abolished.

“Some of these people (senators) spend all this money yet have such extremely low public profiles,” McGrane said. “There are some that I understand – Bert Brown, Duffy, Wallin, even St. Germain and (Liberal House leader James) Cowan – some of these guys do have a public persona going because they’re out and about. But these other people – Peterson, Merchant – I don’t know what they’re doing.”

Neither, at times, does the Senate itself. For instance, the Senate is reviewing whether the spending claims it receives on living expenses in the national capital — allowed for those whose primary residence is more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill — include claims for food, which would clear up how much money senators have actually used on housing itself. As well, the category of claim called “other travel” expenses may encompass layovers en route to the senators’ home provinces, which Wallin says contributes to her high costs. As well, that travel category may include senators using their travel allowances to fly family or staff around the country; it is currently unclear.