"It's within the law"

There's nothing quite like the entitled sanctimony of left-leaning politicians who bray constantly that their only interest in the power of politics is their duty to represent the best interest of the voter. Not all the voters, most particularly those who vote for the politicians who claim to represent the 'little guy', the modest earners, those who live on the edge of poverty, those to whom the state must make amends for their social insecurity through programs designed to make life more tolerable.

Chris Wattie / Reuters

That most outspoken pair in the House of Commons on behalf of the underprivileged, the lower level of society; leader of the New Democratic Party Jack Layton and his spouse Olivia Chow are a lovely-looking pair. Utterly dedicated to representing the interests of society's disadvantaged, those to whom life has not been kind, to whom opportunities to advance themselves have been withheld by an unkind fate.

They know themselves what it is like to live in public housing, so they are capable of empathizing entirely. Subsidized housing is nothing to be ashamed of, or rent-geared-to-income, for it represents society's way of aiding people to live in a manner that all Canadians should be able to aspire to, regardless of income and future prospects. Dignity, above all. And there's nothing amiss there.

Except when those who earn a far greater stipend from their choice of occupation also take advantage of social supports geared specifically for those who qualify for those supports. Which, clearly, Jack Layton and Olivia Chow did not, when they were both councillors in Toronto municipal politics, earning between them well over a hundred thousand dollars. Charitably, their choice to live in co-operative housing was a good-faith indication of their sympathy for those who had little other choice.

Now that they're in federal politics, representing the poor and the under-privileged at the macro-level, they still feel entitled to subsidized housing and in the process make the most of the opportunities available to them under generous allowances extended for Members of Parliament. So generous that they need not provide proof in the way of receipts for expenses claimed. So generous that they are able to each claim living expenses though they live together in the same house/s in Ottawa and Toronto.

Elsewhere, it's called double-billing, but because there is nothing in the rules explicitly recommending against it - no doubt trusting to the presumed ethical calibre of elected officials - it can be engaged in, without offence to their conscience because "it's not illegal". So they, like all other MPs are able to claim expenses for staff salaries, travel, meals, accommodation, constituency office expenses, etc.

This power couple, however, go their professional coevals one better; MPs living in the far reaches of the country claim fairly modest expenses, but they, living a four-hour drive from Ottawa claim astronomical amounts in expenses. Claims for meals are legitimate if they're renting accommodation in Ottawa and their permanent residences are elsewhere. Doesn't take long to rack up an average of $469,000 annually in expenses with those open guidelines.

As Lorne Gunter pointed out in his excellent, revelatory article, Olivia Chow, the defender of the poor and the downtrodden of society, claimed far above the average MP in expenses; hers came to a total of $530,000 and her husband's came to $629,000. Now, isn't that quite simply astonishing? So accustomed to living in the public purse that they cannot wean themselves off those trickling teats.

Their generous, partially tax-free salaries as members of that exclusive club on Parliament Hill is something they earn. Their longevity at the public purse, serving the public as humble servants in the House of Commons also provides them with a gold-plated pension after serving the requisite number of years. They've done very well for themselves, while extending themselves to do well for their supporters.

But then, that's life, and as Olivia Chow responded when she was asked about her soaring expenses, "It's within the law". But it shouldn't be. In the sense that there should obviously be some form of oversight, some mechanism for scrutiny to determine whether our elected Members of Parliament fully understand their full responsibilities in spending taxpayers' money.

Accountability oversight is what we need to restore our confidence, badly shaken by the casual entitlement of these two in disguise as defenders of the public weal.