An edited version of the following article appears in the Fall 2009 edition of The Taxpayer.

On September 4^th, 2009, an unnamed man near Windsor, Ontario (let’s call him, George) scratched his lottery ticket and won $1,000 a week guaranteed for the rest of his life. The ticket was part of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s popular “Cash for Life” contest.

However, as popular as the scratch game is, few Canadians realize that a different type of scratching – political back scratching that is – can actually be far more lucrative. You see, just a few weeks prior to George’s windfall, nine Canadians were appointed by Prime Minister Harper to Canada’s Senate; one of the most lucrative and relaxing government bodies in the country.

While the Ontario Cash for Life contest is quite popular, its winnings pale in comparison to the benefits of being a Senator.

Consider that while George’s weekly cheques add up to $52,000 each year, Canadian senators collect a minimum salary of $132,000 annually. In addition, while George’s weekly winnings remain constant at $1,000 per week for the rest of his life, a Senator’s earnings increases annually. In fact, a senator’s pay is tied to a complex civil service formula which has averaged 3.3% increases over the last 3 years. Beyond a Senator’s minimum salary, he or she can also qualify for additional pay based on added responsibilities. Not to mention, senators also enjoy expense accounts, free air travel and yes, even a pension plan.

If we stand back and look at the big picture, the numbers are mind numbing. If George and a Senate appointee both “won” their windfalls on their 30^th birthdays, and lived as long as the average Canadian (80 years), the senator would win by a country mile. According to CTF calculations, while George would bring in a not so insignificant sum of just over $2 million during his lifetime, the senate appointee would end up with a grand total of over $16 million.

While Canada has never seen a senator serve for 45 years, there is nothing under the current rules to prevent someone from doing so. The only rule that caps the amount of time one can serve in the Senate is the provision which requires a senator to retire by the age of 75. Assuming someone entered the senate today at the age of 30, his or her pay would rise to a whopping $570,000 by the age of 75; at which time an annual pension of $414,470 would kick in.

Alternatively, if a Senator wished to retire at the ripe age of 54, he or she would walk away with an annual pension of more than $202,900, growing every year for the rest of his or her own “Cash for Life” prize.

But what will the lucky nine new senators cost taxpayers? All nine appointees have publicly promised to resign their leather seats eight years from now and either retire or run for “re-election” – that is, if elections are allowed in their respective provinces by that time. If this is the case, the bill will come to a bare minimum of over $17 million for salaries and pensions alone. Again, that includes no additional compensation, perks, or the other office costs; let alone the Senate itself.

A gambler would be hard pressed to bet on their resignations in eight years. One can consider the excuses that would come forward:

• Continued failure to pass Senate reform legislation in either house, due either to continued minorities or a change in government,
• A future Liberal or coalition prime minister that refuses to ‘appoint’ senators from those elected by the provinces, even if reform legislation is passed, and
• The imbalance that would be created if only Conservative senators resigned to run for election, while all Liberals remained in their places.

One may then wish to hedge their bets and consider putting money on their staying right where they are until the mandatory retirement age of 75. If that is the case, the cost in salaries and pensions soars to $35 million.

While even the Roman Senate of more than 2000 year ago was more democratic than Canada’s in the 21^st Century, at least it didn’t cost the taxpayers of the empire quite so dearly.

The following article appears in the January 25, 2010 edition of the National Post, & Canada Free Press.

Few politicians are thought to have Senate reform in their blood the way Prime Minister Stephen Harper does. Having campaigned for it beginning in the late 1980s and winning two general elections with it as a significant part of his platform, it is time for the Prime Minister to invest the political capital necessary to reform Canada’s upper house of Parliament.

By some accounts of legend, around AD 40 Roman Emperor Caligula attempted to appoint his favourite horse to a senior government position in the Senate as a way of showing contempt for the office. While Caligula may have been a mad tyrant, one would be hard pressed to find many Canadians with a more positive view of their own appointed Senate.

One hardly needs to make the case for why it should be reformed anymore, but rather how it should be. As a young MP serving as the Reform Party’s constitutional affairs critic, Harper passionately championed a wholesale makeover in the form of a “triple-e” Senate. Pushing his more modest, but still hugely positive, proposals during the last Parliament, he became the first sitting Prime Minister to appear before a Senate committee. Few then doubted the Prime Minister’s sincerity about finally bringing the needed change he had promised.

With the expected appointment of an additional five Senators to the Red Chamber prior to March 3, the Conservatives will hold 51 seats to the Liberals’ 49. For all intents and purposes, they will have the numbers required to pass legislation without major impediments.

To this point, unelected Liberal Senators have blocked the Prime Minister’s reform package — modest proposals for elections and eight-year term limits — to avoid the embarrassment of retaining their own seats while the chamber slowly filled with democratically elected representatives. The pressure to resign in such circumstances would be inconvenient for those eyeing a maximum $100,000-per-year pension upon their second retirement.

With the exception of Michael Fortier, the Prime Minister justified his two rounds of Senate appointments following the coalition crisis as a necessary evil to balance the numbers in order to eventually reform the institution — presumably now. With the Senate roadblock seemingly out of the way, there are only three scenarios in which the soon to be reintroduced legislation can fail: 1. There is an election; 2. Opposition parties in the House of Commons defeat it; or 3. The Prime Minister does not push it wholeheartedly.

Stephen Harper has proven that when he is serious about passing legislation that his opponents have reservations about — such as stiffening the Criminal Code — he has little trouble bending them to his will. It is doubtful that when push comes to shove enough opposition members would stand up and be counted as voting against such legislation, especially if it were deemed a government priority and therefore a matter of “confidence.”

No doubt, many opposition members will attempt to tie up and stop such reforms from ever coming to a vote, as did Liberal Senators during the last Parliament. Therefore, the Prime Minister should ante up and declare his reform legislation, both to elect senators and limit their terms, a vote of confidence and a government priority.

While fault will lie with the Prime Minister if reform legislation fails to pass before the next election, success in passing it may prove to be one of this government’s greatest achievements yet. Canadians should hope that the Prime Minister’s word is still solid on this issue and that the post-coalition Senate appointments are not a resumption of older times. Say, AD 40.

National Post

Derek Fildebrandt is national research director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation.