NUNAVUT
Less than 20 per cent of Nunavut's population are qualified to be a senator, and that's something Nunavut's senator, Dennis Patterson, is trying to change.

Nunavut Senator Dennis Paterson says a Supreme Court judge did a good job of reviewing expenses submitted by senators. - Stewart Burnett/NNSL file photo

"The bottom line here is that right now to be qualified to be a member of the Senate of Canada, one has to not only be a resident of the region to be appointed to represent but one must also own land," said Patterson, who introduced a private members' bill to amend the Constitution in the Senate March 10.

The exact language in the Constitution stipulates a need for $4,000 value of property and $4,000 net worth.

Land and home ownership are down across the country, but the issue is especially prevalent in Nunavut, where roughly 79 per cent of the population lives in rented accommodation, according to a 2011 survey. Another four per cent of population are in condos.

Patterson called the issue "inequitable" and "outdated" and hopes to remove the requirement. He is still in favour of the rule that would-be senators must live in their jurisdiction, though, something he has been criticized for in the past.

"I live in Nunavut," he confirmed to Nunavut News/North. "I work in Ottawa."

He said he has family in British Columbia, whom he visits when he can, but does not have a home that he occupies there.

Patterson, like all senators, is required on an annual basis to show proof of his residence, including having a Nunavut health card, driver's licence and documents showing he pays taxes in his home jurisdiction.

His bill to amend the Constitution went to a second reading in the Senate on March 24.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie announced March 21 that more than a dozen senators owe expenses, including $13,762 by Patterson.

That money went to lawyers' fees Patterson spent on developing the private members' bill to amend the senator land requirement in the Constitution.

"There was no question by the auditor general or Mr. Binnie about the appropriateness of those expenses," Patterson said, adding that he thought Binnie did a thorough job reviewing the issue.

"The issue however was whether those expenses for legal opinion should have been paid over one fiscal year or could have been paid over two fiscal years. I had hoped to persuade Justice Binnie that since they were legitimate expenses, it was OK to have had the expenses spread over two fiscal years, because it was a sizeable expense."

Binnie ruled differently, though, and Patterson said he will repay the expenses.

"I agreed to be bound by the special arbitrator's findings from the beginning," he said. "I felt the process was wholesome and fair."

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.