Article content continued

Like all such declarations, they were noted in the official transcripts. The senators recused themselves and none of their colleagues appeared to have anything more to say.

Although the conflicts between serving the public and personal financial interests may not have seemed an issue, a National Post analysis finds they are everywhere in the red chamber.

While ministers in the House of Commons must put their business assets in a blind trust, senators, who can stall, alter or even quash proposed laws, are under no such obligation.

The scrupulous ones try to segregate their personal business from their political power. But in many cases, drawing a hard line between the two spheres of interest is not as simple as recusing oneself from a Senate discussion, committee or vote.

This raises the question: can a public representative serve two masters, particularly when work for one could seriously affect work for the other?

“It’s shocking” senators are allowed to join corporate boards, says Richard Leblanc, associate professor of law, governance and ethics at York University in Toronto.

“I think a reasonable person would conclude that this doesn’t make sense. That a politician that makes laws can sit on the board of a company that is affected by laws. I think this has fallen through the cracks.”

The scandals surrounding former Liberal senator Mac Harb, and suspended Tory senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin, have escalated calls for Senate reform. Next Friday, the Supreme Court will finally rule on the Harper government’s reference question: How much power Ottawa has to change the senate without a constitutional amendment, including imposing term limits, electing senators, or even the power to abolish it.