June 2015
Report of the Auditor General of Canada
to the Senate of Canada
Senators’ Expenses

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

 The Report is available on our website at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca.
Ce document est également publié en français.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2015.
Cover photograph: Senate Chamber entrance, © Senate of Canada.
Cat. No. FA3-95/2015-PDF
ISBN 978-0-660-02336-6

 Auditor General of Canada
Vérificateur général du Canada

To the Honourable Speaker of the Senate:
I have the honour to transmit herewith this June 2015 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to
the Senate of Canada—Senators’ Expenses. This report completes the comprehensive audit of Senate
expenses, including Senators’ expenses, that the Senate requested in June 2013.
Yours sincerely,

Michael Ferguson, CPA, CA
FCA (New Brunswick)
OTTAWA, 4 June 2015

 Table of Contents
Overview

1

Introduction

5

Findings and Recommendations

9

Oversight of Senators’ expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Senators govern themselves with limited independent oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Control framework for Senators’ expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Senators often did not prioritize consideration of the cost to taxpayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Information provided by Senators to support expenses was often insufficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Disclosure of information by Senators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Public disclosure of Senators’ expenses did not provide sufficient detail to convey
whether expenses were appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Disclosure by Senators of relationships or outside interests was insufficient
to identify potential conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Findings specific to the Office of the Speaker of the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Speaker’s office lacked control and oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Findings reported on individual Senators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Conclusion

26

About the Audit

27

List of Recommendations

33

Appendices
A. Files recommended for referral to other authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B. Files recommended for review by the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Senators’ Expenses

iii

 Overview
What we found

1.
We found that the oversight, accountability, and transparency of
Senators’ expenses was quite simply not adequate. We have identified
opportunities for improvement, and these are outlined in the report.
2.
We also found that Senators did not always consider the requirement
to ensure that expenses funded through the public purse were justifiable,
reasonable, and appropriate. We have noted areas where Senators could
make decisions that would be more economical for taxpayers.
3.
While we have not provided individual reports for 86 Senators
and former Senators, we found that the other 30 that we examined
• incurred expenses that we determined were not in accordance with
the applicable Senate rules, policies, or guidelines;
• made claims that were not for parliamentary business (Exhibit 1); or
• incurred expenses for which there was such a pervasive lack of
evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were
prevented from reaching an audit opinion.
4.
We have provided an individual report on each of these 30 Senators
and former Senators in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.
5.
We have recommended to the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration that the nine cases
reported in Appendix A be immediately referred to other authorities,
such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for investigation.
6.
We have also recommended that the Standing Senate Committee
on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration consider the 21 cases
reported in Appendix B to determine whether further action should be
taken in those cases.

What needs to happen

7.
The weaknesses and problems uncovered in the course of this
comprehensive audit of Senators’ expenses call for a transformational
change in the way expenses are claimed, managed, controlled, and
reviewed.
8.
Simply changing or adding to existing rules will not be enough.
Improvements in oversight, accountability, transparency, and Senators’
consideration for the cost to taxpayers are needed to resolve the issues
that we have identified.

Senators’ Expenses

1

 What we examined

9.
The objective of our audit was to determine whether Senators’
expenses and other transactions have been properly controlled and
incurred for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of
public funds (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1 Definitions of terms used in this report
Parliamentary business—For the purposes of this report, it includes
parliamentary functions, public business, or official business, as defined below.
Parliamentary functions—”[D]uties and activities related to the position of
senator, wherever performed, and includes public and official business and
partisan matters, but does not include activities related to
a. the election of a member of the House of Commons during an election
under the Canada Elections Act, or
b. the private business interests of a senator or a member of a senator’s family
or household.”
Public business—”[A]ll business carried on by a senator for public purposes,
whether or not authorized by the Senate or the Government of Canada, and
includes official business, representative business, partisan business and related
travel, but does not include attending to one’s private concerns.”
Official business—”[P]ublic business that has been authorized by the Senate or
a committee of the Senate or requested in writing by a Minister of the Crown.”
Source: Senate Administrative Rules

Due regard—Good judgment to ensure the prudent use of resources, with
particular consideration of the cost to taxpayers.
Source: Adapted from the Senate Administrative Rules

10.
As requested by the Senate of Canada, this audit has been
comprehensive. With the exception of salaries paid to Senators, our audit
examined all expenses incurred by 116 Senators and former Senators
between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2013, including travel and other
expenses incurred by Senators while participating in activities for
committees, associations, and interparliamentary groups. This involved
examining more than 80,000 expense items.
11.
We assessed whether expenses incurred by Senators were in
accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines in effect during
the audit period. We looked for all available information and details to
support expenses incurred by Senators. In particular, we examined
whether the expenses incurred were for the conduct of parliamentary
business. We also reviewed each transaction to determine whether the
Senators had considered the cost to taxpayers when spending public funds.
Finally, we examined the financial and human resource management
practices of each Senator, to determine whether these practices provided
proper control over the use of public funds.

2

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 12.
In planning our audit, we considered the audit reports prepared
by Deloitte LLP on the expenses of Senator Michael Duffy and Senator
Pamela Wallin. In its report, dated 13 August 2013, the Standing Senate
Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the
Internal Economy Committee) agreed with Deloitte’s assessments
contained in the audit report on Senator Wallin’s expenses. The Internal
Economy Committee also acknowledged that Deloitte’s application of the
Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines to the claims in question was fair.
13.
On the interpretation of the Senators’ Travel Policy, which had been
changed in June 2012, in sections 3.7 and 4.3 of its report, Deloitte stated:
Although, as indicated above, several changes were made to
the underlying policies and guidelines governing Senators’ travel
in the Review Period, the overall principles of the policy did not
change; ie., that travel costs would be reimbursed if the purpose of
travel was to carry out the Senator’s parliamentary functions. . . .
. . . The Travel Policy, including Appendix A which provides
examples of travel purposes that would and would not be funded
by the Senate, was effective as of June 5, 2012. We understand
this to have provided specific examples of the application of the
existing policies, and have used this as a guide when assessing
Senator Wallin’s travel claims throughout the period of our review.
14.
Though the Internal Economy Committee agreed with Deloitte’s
approach, we have noted differing views among Senators about the effect
of the June 2012 Senators’ Travel Policy. While some Senators agreed with
Deloitte’s interpretation, others expressed the view that the June 2012
Senators’ Travel Policy changed the requirements that applied to them.
15.
In conducting our audit, we were guided by the overarching
principles expressed in the Senate Administrative Rules:
Senate resources shall be used for the service of Canada, and in
particular, for the parliamentary functions of Senators and the
service of the Senate.
Every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account
for that use.
16.
In our view, these overarching principles governing Senate expenses
were unchanged during the audit period.
17.
We have also been mindful of the varied nature of the work and
activities performed by Senators. We have spent considerable time gaining
an understanding of the approaches taken by Senators to perform their
parliamentary duties and functions. We have considered the views and
perspectives of Senators and former Senators, in light of the Senate’s rules,
policies, and guidelines, and we exercised our professional judgment in

Senators’ Expenses

3

 determining whether their expenses were incurred for parliamentary
business. The fundamental principle that guided our work was that public
funds should not be used to pay for personal or private activities.
18.
More details on the audit objectives, scope, approach, criteria, and
the names of the 116 Senators whose expenses we audited, are in About
the Audit.

Why we did this audit

19.
In June 2012, we reported the results of a performance audit
of the Senate Administration. We concluded that, while the Senate
Administration reviewed and authorized transactions, improvements
were needed so that documentation would be sufficient to demonstrate
that the transactions were for parliamentary business. In that audit, we
did not examine individual expenses incurred and claimed by Senators.
20.
Throughout late 2012 and early 2013, questions arose about the
living expenses incurred by Senators Patrick Brazeau, Michael Duffy, and
Mac Harb, and about travel expenses claimed by Senator Pamela Wallin.
21.
On 4 June 2013, the Leader of the Government in the Senate
presented a motion in the Senate, requesting that the Auditor General
of Canada conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses, including
Senators’ expenses. On 6 June 2013, the Senate adopted that motion.
The Auditor General accepted the Senate’s request on 7 June 2013.

4

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Introduction
Roles of Senators

22.
The Senate of Canada is composed of up to 105 members. All regions
of Canada are represented equally in the Senate, and each province is
represented by a set number of Senators, irrespective of that province’s
population. This guarantees that minority regions have a voice and can
assert their rights and interests within the Parliament of Canada.
23.
As the Supreme Court of Canada has recently stated, over time
the Senate has come to represent various groups that were underrepresented
in the House of Commons. It serves as a forum for ethnic, gender,
religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a
meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular
democratic process.
24.
Some Senators are appointed as political officers and hold leadership
positions within the Senate. These are
• the Speaker of the Senate,
• the Speaker pro tempore (the acting Speaker who presides in
the absence of the Speaker),
• the Leader of the Government,
• the Leader of the Opposition,
• the Deputy Leader of the Government,
• the Deputy Leader of the Opposition,
• party whips, and
• deputy party whips.
25.
A Senator remains a Senator whether or not Parliament is in
session, prorogued, or dissolved. Senators’ parliamentary functions
may include
• Attending Senate sessions. Senators debate bills passed by the
House of Commons, and can also draft and introduce government
and private members’ bills to the Senate. For bills to become law,
they must be passed by the Senate and the House of Commons,
before they receive Royal Assent.
• Sitting on committees and subcommittees. Bills undergo detailed
study in committee, where members may recommend amendments.
Committees also conduct in-depth studies, and Senators may travel
to obtain information or evidence on numerous subjects, such as
agriculture, forestry, and human rights.

Senators’ Expenses

5

 • Representing the provinces, regions, or territories for which
they were appointed. Senators are expected to remain members of
their communities and regions and to continue activities in those
communities and regions while serving the public interest and those
they represent.
• Playing partisan roles. Senators usually belong to political parties
and play partisan roles. As part of their partisan roles, Senators may
be members of their parties’ caucuses. They may also be members of
regional caucuses.
• Belonging to like-minded groups of Senators. Senators may belong
to groups that promote areas of public interest, such as human rights
or the Canadian Armed Forces. Their activities may include travel
with other Senators or other parliamentarians.
• Promoting other causes and activities. Senators may also promote
other interests of Canadians that extend beyond the provinces,
regions, or territories for which they were appointed. These interests
could include public interest issues, such as mental health or
programs for Canadians with disabilities.
• Belonging to associations and interparliamentary groups. Senators
may belong to groups that support ongoing parliamentary relations
with other countries. Senators’ activities include attending meetings,
planning conferences, and occasionally travelling with other
Senators or other parliamentarians.
26.
Senators may also engage in activities outside their parliamentary
duties and functions. These activities include being employed, carrying on
private business interests, or sitting on boards of directors of other
organizations. These activities are permitted, provided that they do not
violate any provisions of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for
Senators and are declared to the Senate Ethics Officer.

Senate financial
management framework

27.

The Senate’s financial management framework has four components:
• The Parliament of Canada Act sets the salaries, allowances, and
types of expenses that can be paid to Senators. It also authorizes
the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration (the Internal Economy Committee) to establish
annual budgets and rules on expenditures.
• The Senate Administrative Rules are established by the Senate.
They codify the fundamental principles and rules for the internal
administration of the Senate and its allocation and use of resources.

6

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 • The Senate Administrative Rules are supplemented by policies,
guidelines, forms, and practices adopted or implemented by the
Senate, the Internal Economy Committee, or the Clerk of the
Senate. For example, the Senators’ Travel Policy sets out the rules,
practices, roles, and responsibilities governing the use of Senate
resources for travel. Other guidance deals with hospitality expenses
for both the Senate Administration and Senators, and with living
expenses for Senators.
• The Internal Economy Committee has the exclusive authority to
determine whether any use of any funds, goods, services, or premises
by a Senator is or was proper. The Committee may issue a decision
when a Senator or the Senate Administration requests guidance or
clarification on an existing rule or policy, or a specific expense claim.
The decision may modify the existing rule or policy, and the decision
may be made public.
28.
The Senate Administrative Rules state that Senate resources shall
be used for Senators’ parliamentary functions and for the service of the
Senate. The Senate Administrative Rules also state that every person
who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. When
submitting claims for reimbursement, in most cases, Senators are expected
to sign expense claim forms attesting that expenditures were incurred in
carrying out their parliamentary functions. Senators are required to provide
supporting documentation for travel claims. Documentation must also
accompany hospitality and living expense claims. Senators may claim
reimbursement for expenses incurred in relation to meetings or small
items as part of their parliamentary functions. They must keep records or
log details regarding their hospitality events, attendees of those events,
and recipients of gifts with a value greater than $50, but they do not have
to provide these details to the Senate Administration.
29.
A fundamental objective of the Senate’s rules, policies, and
guidelines is to ensure that Senators are not out of pocket for expenses
incurred in fulfilling their duties and functions, while ensuring that these
expenses are justifiable, appropriate, reasonable, and well managed.
30.
The Senate Administration advises Senators on matters related
to financial policies, procedures, processes, and the acquisition of goods
and services. It also processes invoices and reimbursement claims, and
supplies information to the Internal Economy Committee about financial
performance and trends that may indicate a need for changes to the
financial management framework.

Senators’ Expenses

7

 Budgets

31.
The budget for the operations of the Senate of Canada for
the 2011–12 and 2012–13 fiscal years was approximately $94 million
and $92 million, respectively.
32.
Each Senator is responsible for managing his or her own office.
Senators may not allocate, use, or authorize the use of Senate resources
except to carry out parliamentary business. Each Senator is allocated a
salary and an office budget (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2 Salaries and office budgets of non-officer Senators
Funding allocations

2011–12

2012–13

Salary (taxable)

$132,300

$135,200

Office budget (including staff salaries, office
expenses, and hospitality)

$153,120

$161,200

Note: Within the office budget for each Senator, allowable hospitality expenses were limited
to $5,000 in the 2011–12 fiscal year and to $3,000 in the 2012–13 fiscal year.
Source: The Senate of Canada

33.
The Senate officers identified in paragraph 24 receive additional
amounts to cover expenses related to their particular responsibilities.
These amounts include staff salaries, research assistance, and office
and hospitality expenses.
34.
In addition to each Senator’s office budget, the Senate
Administration issues payments directly for specific expenses, including
the Senator’s regular travel to Ottawa, and certain telecommunications
expenses. These matters are discussed in paragraphs 58 to 71.

8

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Findings and Recommendations
Oversight of Senators’ expenses
Senators govern themselves with limited independent oversight
What we found

35.
We found a lack of independent oversight in the way Senators’
expenses are governed.

Lack of independent
oversight

36.
As a group, Senators are responsible for governing themselves and
how the Senate functions. They design their own rules, choose whether
to enforce those rules, and determine what, if any, information will be
publicly disclosed.
37.
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration (Internal Economy Committee) is responsible for ensuring
that the Senate’s resources are managed appropriately and that its assets
are protected. However, the Committee is made up of Senators who also
claim expenses as individual Senators.
38.
Under the Parliament of Canada Act, the Internal Economy
Committee has exclusive authority to act on, and has full discretion over,
all of the Senate’s financial and administrative matters, including those of
individual Senators, and its premises, services, and staff. The Committee,
among other things
• reviews and authorizes budgets of the Senate Administration
and Senate committees, and
• sets policies and guidelines on items such as Senators’ travel
and research expenditures.
39.
The Internal Economy Committee may issue a decision when a
Senator or the Senate Administration requests guidance or clarification.
Its decisions in such cases may modify the application of an existing rule
or policy.
40.
The Internal Economy Committee also decides on questions or
actions of individual Senators about their expense claims. The Committee
may decide to allow reimbursement to a Senator after the expense
claim has been rejected by the Senate Administration. The Senate
Administration may have rejected the claim for reimbursement on the
grounds that it was not for parliamentary business or not in accordance
with the Senate’s rules, policies, or guidelines.

Senators’ Expenses

9

 41.
The Internal Economy Committee may also require repayment
of amounts claimed by Senators that the Senate Administration had
approved and that had been reimbursed.

Why this matters

42.
A structure in which individuals set rules that apply to themselves,
and have the authority to make final decisions about how those rules are
applied, may give rise to a perceived lack of objectivity, as those individuals
may be viewed as looking after their own interests.
43.
Senators who sit on the Internal Economy Committee also make
expense claims as individual Senators. Because the decisions they make
may apply to their own expense claims, the Senators who sit on the
Committee may be perceived as unable to make independent and
impartial decisions.

Importance of
independent audit

44.
The Senate has both internal and external auditors. We found
that the internal auditor conducted a limited amount of verification of
past transactions involving Senators’ expenses. In our 2012 audit report,
we stated that there was an opportunity for the Senate’s internal audit
function to introduce this type of work as part of its risk-based audit plan.
45.
In January 2015, an interim reorganization of the Senate
Administration changed the reporting structure of the Senate’s internal
auditor. The internal auditor previously reported to the Clerk of the Senate,
but now reports to the Chief Corporate Services Officer. Reports prepared
by the internal auditor may pertain to areas under the responsibility of
the Chief Corporate Services Officer, and may affect matters that relate
to individual Senators, including those sitting on the Internal Economy
Committee. As the internal auditor does not have access to an independent
oversight body, we are of the view that the internal auditor is unable to be
an independent voice.
46.
An independent accounting firm has also conducted annual audits
of the Senate’s financial statements. These external audits are designed to
determine whether the Senate’s financial statements were fairly presented.
They are not designed to probe whether the expenses incurred by
individual Senators are in accordance with applicable rules, policies, and
guidelines and whether Senators considered the cost to taxpayers when
spending public funds. It is our view that the Senate should ensure that
regular, independent compliance audits of expenses incurred by Senators
be conducted.

10

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Why this matters

47.
In many organizations, an internal audit function performs
independent verification. In other organizations, a similar role may be
undertaken by the organization’s external auditor. In both cases, the
auditor must have a clear and unambiguous mandate and unrestricted
access to all information needed to reach audit conclusions.
48.
Independent audits that examine whether Senators’ expenses
have complied with Senate rules, policies, and guidelines would be an
important component of a rigorous oversight framework. Results of these
audits could be used to identify potential improvements and to enhance
transparency when they are made public.
49.
Regular independent audits of expenses incurred by Senators would
promote diligence and discipline from all individuals who are responsible
for the spending of public funds, encourage continuous improvement in
financial management, and support the early identification of issues that
need further attention.
50.
Our report on all Senators’ expenses has established a baseline
by providing the Senate with a clear position from which to take action.
Future audits of expenses incurred by Senators could be performed on a
sample of Senators and their expenses.

Recommendations

51.
The Senate of Canada should review the mandate and structure
of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration, as well as the reporting relationship of the internal auditor,
with the objective of creating independent oversight of Senators’ expenses.
52.
The oversight of Senators’ expenses should be performed by a body
(the “oversight body”), the majority of whose membership, including its
chair, is independent of the Senate. The members of this oversight body
should be selected so that their collective skills, knowledge, and experience
enable the oversight body to carry out its duties thoroughly and efficiently.
53.

The mandate of the oversight body should include
• a role of contributing to the development and interpretation of rules,
policies, and guidelines that apply to the expenses of Senators;
• the authority to review expenses incurred by individual Senators
and all relevant documentation;
• the authority to make final decisions on whether those expenses
comply with the rules, policies, and guidelines, and whether
amounts should be repaid by Senators; and
• the exclusive authority to hire and terminate the Senate’s internal
auditor, and to approve the terms of reference and mandate of the
internal auditor.

Senators’ Expenses

11

 54.
The meetings of the oversight body should be open to the public,
and all its reports, minutes, decisions, and reasons should be published
on the Senate’s website.
55.
The oversight body should have direct access to the Senate’s internal
and external auditors. The auditors should present their internal and
external audit plans and reports to the oversight body and those plans and
reports should be made public on the Senate’s website. These plans should
include a regular compliance element involving an examination of whether
the expenses incurred by an appropriate sample of individual Senators are
in accordance with the applicable rules, policies, and guidelines.
56.
The oversight body should have the power to request that internal or
external audits be performed on any matter within the authority conferred
upon it.
57.
The Auditor General of Canada should be given a clear mandate as
the external auditor to conduct audits of the Senate of Canada, including
audits of Senators’ expenses. The Auditor General should have unrestricted
access to all information needed to reach audit conclusions on the expenses
incurred by Senators, including information in the possession of
individual Senators.

Control framework for Senators’ expenses
Senators often did not prioritize consideration of the cost to taxpayers
What we found

58.
We found that some Senators were often mindful of the cost of their
activities to taxpayers. For example, we found that some Senators clearly
separated their personal activities from their parliamentary business and
ensured that the Senate was not charged for expenses related to their
personal activities. Some other Senators chose not to charge certain
expenses that would have been eligible under the Senate’s rules, policies,
and guidelines, even though they had personally incurred the expenses.
59.
However, we also found many occasions where Senators’ choices
could have been less costly, particularly in relation to travel, per diems,
and telecommunications. For example, in our view, the Senate could have
saved almost $400,000 during the period covered by this audit by
addressing the concerns that we raise below relating to per diems,
telecommunications, and holiday greeting cards.

Per diem—A daily allowance for Senators, based on Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
rates and adopted by the Internal Economy Committee, for meals and incidental expenses
incurred when Senators are on travel status.

12

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 60.
Given individual Senators’ differing views and approaches in
relation to the expenses that they incur, including the cases in Appendix A
and Appendix B of this report, we are concerned that Senators did not
always consider the requirement to ensure that expenses funded through
the public purse were justifiable, appropriate, and reasonable.

Travel

61.
Each Senator receives an allotment of 64 travel points per fiscal
year for parliamentary business. Travel points can be used for travel
within Canada, to New York (for United Nations-related matters only),
to Washington, DC, and for one international trip that is preapproved
by the Internal Economy Committee. Expenses incurred for travel using
the points are not charged to the Senator’s office budget. Once a Senator
has used up his or her annual 64 points, he or she cannot claim
reimbursement for any additional travel expenses incurred. Unused
travel points are not carried over from year to year.
62.
The system provides all Senators with the same access to travel,
regardless of the distances from their homes to Ottawa, and supports
reunification of Senators with their families. Senators whose primary
residence is in the National Capital Region do not have to travel to attend
Senate sittings, as these are primarily held in Ottawa. Those Senators can
therefore use their travel points for other trips.
63.
We found that the costs of travel undertaken by Senators using
their 64 points varied greatly, because the number of travel points charged
to the Senator is the same for business and economy class travel. For
example, some Senators chose to fly business class even on short flights
between Ottawa and Toronto, while other Senators chose a more
economical travel option, such as travelling in economy class. Senators
may travel by train in business class at no cost to the Senate. Senators’
spouses and dependent children may also travel by train for free.
64.
The expenses incurred for travel under the 64-point system are
managed centrally by the Senate Administration, and not from the
budgets allotted to Senators individually. As a result, the Senators’ office

Travel point system—A point system used by the Senate to govern reimbursement
of Senators’ travel claims. Each Senator receives 64 points for travel per fiscal year for
parliamentary business. If all 64 points are used in the fiscal year, any further travel expenses
incurred are not reimbursed. The Senator may use the points or allocate them to a designated
traveller (usually the Senator’s spouse) and/or to alternates (a dependent child, a staff
member, or an employee or contractor of the Senate or the Senator). Points are used for each
trip taken by the Senator, alternate, or designated traveller, subject to other limits on travel
imposed by Senate rules, policies, or guidelines. The number of points used depends on
factors such as destination, duration, and mode of transportation. For example, one point
is used for every return trip between the Senator’s home region and the National Capital
Region. The 64-point system does not include travel for Senate committee or parliamentary
association meetings.

Senators’ Expenses

13

 budgets are not affected by the costs that result from their travel decisions.
Furthermore, there is no public disclosure of points used by individual
Senators or by their alternate or designated travellers.

Per diems

65.
Senators who are on travel status can claim a per diem allowance
for meals and other incidental expenses. Furthermore, Senators who do
not reside in the National Capital Region (NCR) are considered to be
travelling when attending Senate sittings, and can claim the per diem
allowance while in the NCR to conduct parliamentary business. Meals are
sometimes provided to Senators at committee meetings, when they travel
on planes or trains, or when they attend public events as part of their
parliamentary business.
66.
We found per diem meal allowances that had been claimed and paid
to Senators when, on the basis of the information available, it appeared
that a meal had been provided from another source.
67.
When we asked Senators why they claimed a per diem meal
allowance when it appeared that a meal had been made available,
we received many responses, such as that
• no food was left at the committee meeting when they arrived,
• they were unable to eat before or at speaking engagements, or
• it was not possible to get a reasonable meal on an airplane
in Canada.
68.
We are of the view that claiming these allowances when a meal
was made available by a public or private source did not demonstrate
consideration of the cost to taxpayers.

Other expenses

69.
We found that some Senators and their staff members incurred
significant roaming charges on their mobile communication devices. These
charges can accumulate quickly when travelling outside the country, yet
they can easily be managed by planning in advance and taking steps such
as obtaining a cellular plan that minimizes these costs.
70.
The Senate has standard holiday greeting cards that Senators
may use. A number of Senators chose to purchase customized greeting
cards at a higher cost. We found that, if all Senators used the Senate’s
standard holiday greeting cards, the overall savings would have been
at least $30,000.

Travel status—The status of a Senator when away from his or her primary residence and
undertaking parliamentary duties and activities related to his or her position. While on travel
status, Senators can claim expenses that include transportation costs, accommodations,
and per diems.

14

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 71.
In our view, the management of these types of expenses did not
always demonstrate that Senators and their staff considered the cost to
taxpayers when incurring these expenses.

Why this matters

72.
Given that rules, policies, and guidelines cannot specifically address
every situation that may arise, care must be exercised when spending
public funds. By adopting a cautious approach, Senators can minimize
costs to taxpayers while undertaking the activities that are necessary to
perform their parliamentary business.

Recommendations

73.
Senators should collectively determine a core set of principles that
weigh the cost to taxpayers against the expenditures necessary to conduct
parliamentary business. The Senate of Canada should ensure that the
applicable rules, policies, and guidelines comply with those principles, and
that transactions of Senators reflect the application of those principles.
74.
The Senate should enhance the training and guidance provided to all
Senators and their staff to ensure that there is a consistent understanding
and application of the principles and the rules, policies, and guidelines
that are used to implement those principles.
75.
The Senate should ensure that the Senate Administration is provided
with the same training and guidance to ensure that its understanding and
application of the principles, rules, policies, and guidelines support the
Senators and their staff in the management of expenses.
76.
The Senate should request that the Senate Administration prepare
strategies and implementation plans to assist the Senate and individual
Senators in reducing the cost to taxpayers of their future expenses.

Information provided by Senators to support expenses was often insufficient
What we found

77.
We found that information provided by Senators to the Senate
Administration in support of their expense claims, or the claims made
by their staff, was often insufficient to determine whether the expenses
incurred were for parliamentary business. Senators commonly declared
that the purpose of their travel was “parliamentary business” or “Senate
business,” with no other details provided.

Insufficient
documentation provided
with expense claims

78.
As stated in paragraph 28, every person who uses Senate resources is
responsible to account for that use. For example, Senators are required to
keep records or to log details to support their hospitality expenses and
expenses for gifts that have a value greater than $50. This information is
not always made available to the Senate Administration.

Senators’ Expenses

15

 79.
In our 2012 report, we found that some expense claim files
maintained by the Senate Administration did not contain sufficient detail
to explain the intended purposes of the transactions. As we explained in
our report at the time, without sufficient documentation it is difficult
for the Senate Administration to clearly determine whether expenses
were appropriate.
80.
In our current audit, we found that in many cases Senators did
not maintain records to document the parliamentary business that
they conducted while spending public funds. For example, we found that
some Senators did not maintain a paper or electronic calendar that could
be used to identify the purpose of their travel, length of stay, and details
about the activities that they conducted. In cases where such records
were maintained, they were not regularly made available to the Senate
Administration when the expense claim was submitted for reimbursement.
81.
We also found that many Senators did not keep records to support
claims for travel within their regions. Senators can claim reimbursement
for such travel, including, for example, mileage. However, without
documentation to support the claims, it was difficult for us to determine
whether parliamentary business had been conducted. In auditing these
particular claims, we considered all the evidence available to us, and our
understanding of the nature of the work of the Senator, to determine
whether the expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business.
82.
Where documentation practices were poor, we looked beyond the
information provided with the expense claims to determine whether the
expenses incurred were appropriate. We sought additional evidence from
Senators, including explanations as to why a particular expense was for
parliamentary business. We also sought independent evidence of Senators’
attendance at certain events. Finally, we reviewed any trends associated
with their expenses to assist in determining whether particular expenses
had been incurred for parliamentary business.
83.
Notwithstanding the information that was available to us, it was
often difficult to identify whether the expenses had been incurred for
parliamentary business or for unrelated purposes. As illustrated by the
reports on individual Senators and former Senators in Appendix A and
Appendix B of this report, we found that many expenses were incurred for
activities that could not reasonably be viewed as parliamentary business.
In a few cases, in Appendix A of this report, we determined that it was
not possible to reach an audit conclusion.

16

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Insufficient
documentation to
support contract
payments

84.
In our 2012 audit report, we found that the Senate Administration
had directives, a contracting policy, and a control framework in place to
assist Senators in the procurement of goods and most services. We also
noted, however, varying practices in the use of a formal contract,
documentation supporting the contract, and the evaluation of the
services rendered.
85.
In this audit, we found that some Senators were unable to provide
documentation to show that they had received services from contractors
who had been paid for their work. For example, some Senators did not
have evidence of the work performed by the contractors, such as reports,
correspondence, or time sheets. As a result, in conducting this audit,
we had to perform additional audit procedures, including having many
detailed discussions with Senators, in order to understand the nature and
reasonableness of the services provided and to determine whether the
expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business.
86.
We also found cases where Senators had made payments to
contractors for services that were outside the scope of the contract, or
for services rendered before a formal contract had been put in place.
87.
In cases where the results of our additional procedures failed to
produce sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support whether the
expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, we reported our audit
findings in the individual reports of Senators and former Senators in
Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.

Why this matters

88.
The failure to maintain proper documentation to support the use of
public funds makes it difficult for Senators to demonstrate that they have
followed rules that apply to expenses they have incurred or public funds
they have disbursed. This can be achieved through accurate and timely
contract documentation, including clear work requirements and evidence
that the work has been performed. Furthermore, having formal contracts
in place before work is performed ensures that all parties have a clear
understanding of their responsibilities under the contract before any work
is undertaken.
89.
Proper documentation also allows those responsible for reviewing
and approving expenses and reimbursement claims to carry out their
control function appropriately. This contributes to the credibility of
individual Senators and of the Senate as an institution.

Senators’ Expenses

17

 Recommendations

90.
Senators should ensure that complete documentation and
explanations are submitted to the Senate Administration to support their
expense claims, including full descriptions of the parliamentary business
conducted and evidence of any work performed by contractors.
91.
All Senators should use the Senate electronic calendar, or a
paper-based equivalent, to record all their activities, and these records
should be archived on a regular basis. Notations for each item in the
calendar should include a description of the activity, its connection to
the Senator’s parliamentary business, whether any meals were provided,
and any component of personal or private activities. The Senate
Administration should be provided with access to the Senator’s electronic
calendar, or copies of the Senator’s paper-based equivalent, for the purpose
of processing expenses and reimbursement claims.

Disclosure of information by Senators
Public disclosure of Senators’ expenses did not provide sufficient detail to convey whether
expenses were appropriate
What we found

92.
We found that there was a lack of detail in the public disclosure
of Senators’ expenses.

Lack of detail in
public disclosure

93.
We found that the information disclosed on the Senate website
about Senators’ expenses did not provide sufficient detail on the nature
and purpose of travel and hospitality expenses. For example, it was not
possible to know, from this information, how many trips a Senator had
taken in any given period, the number of travel points used, or the cost
of each trip.

Why this matters

94.
Transparency promotes trust, and would enable Canadians to
better understand the expenses that are incurred by Senators and their
staff. It would also help to demonstrate that public funds are being used
appropriately, and that the cost to taxpayers is being considered when
Senators undertake parliamentary business. Because Senators are not
subject to the Access to Information Act, the public does not have a
guaranteed right to receive information related to the expenses incurred
by Senators and reimbursed from public funds.
95.
Some Senators provide additional information on their individual
websites. While this is a good practice, it is our view that it would be more
effective for detailed information on expenses incurred by Senators to
appear on the Senate website in a clear, consistent, and transparent format.

18

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Recommendations

96.
Senators should fully disclose their use of public funds. In this
disclosure, they should provide information about their budgets and fully
itemize and disclose all their individual expenses on the Senate’s website,
in a format that is accessible, clear, and easy to navigate. At a minimum,
these expenses would include living expenses, travel, hospitality,
contracts, other amounts paid directly by the Senate of Canada and
allocated to individual Senators, other office expenses, and any costs for
their work with associations, committees, and exchanges. The disclosures
should provide sufficient information at the level of individual
transactions, including
• the parliamentary purpose for all components of the expense;
• the date the expense was incurred or the period covered by the
expense;
• whether any direct costs were incurred by the Senate as a result
of personal activities, and the corresponding reimbursement;
• in the case of travel claims, the names of the travellers and the
number of travel points used;
• a breakdown of the main components of the cost incurred (such as
airfare, per diems, accommodations, and other transportation costs);
and
• whether any of the costs were recovered from third parties and the
extent of the recovery.
97.
The Senate Administrative Rules and Senate policies and guidelines
should also be publicly available on the Senate’s website.

Disclosure by Senators of relationships or outside interests was insufficient
to identify potential conflicts
What we found

98.
We found that there was no requirement to disclose close personal
or business relationships, or outside interests, of Senators or their staff
pertaining to transactions that involved the use of public funds.

Lack of disclosure of close
personal or business
relationships, or outside
interests

99.
In addition to their parliamentary duties and functions, Senators
may undertake employment, business, or other activities. Each year,
Senators are required to disclose all of their outside interests to the Senate
Ethics Officer.

Senators’ Expenses

19

 100. However, we found that Senators were not required to disclose, at a
transaction level, any close personal or business relationships, or outside
interests, that they or their staff might have had in relation to their
individual travel and hospitality expenses. Nor were they required to
disclose close personal or business relationships, or outside interests,
related to their rental of accommodations or office space. For example,
when Senators submitted travel claims, they were not required to disclose
whether they had undertaken any personal, business, or other activities
during their travel.
101. Similarly, we found that Senators were not required to disclose
any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that
they or their staff might have had in relation to potential contractors
or employees.
102. Senators were required to abide by a conflict of interest code, which
sought to
• maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity
of Senators and the Senate;
• provide for greater certainty and guidance for Senators when dealing
with issues that might have presented foreseeable real or apparent
conflicts of interest; and
• establish clear standards and a transparent system by which
questions about proper conduct might have been addressed by
an independent, non-partisan advisor.

Why this matters

103. Failure to disclose close personal or business relationships, or
outside interests, can create the perception that Senators, their staff, or
those close to them, could personally benefit from the use of public funds.

Recommendations

104. Senators should disclose to the Senate Administration any close
personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that pertain to
their individual travel and hospitality expenses. Senators should also
disclose any relationships or outside interests when renting
accommodations or office space from another party.
105. Senators should publicly disclose, on the Senate website, any close
personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that they or their
staff have with contractors they intend to engage using Senate funds.
106. Senators should publicly disclose, on the Senate website, any close
personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that they or their
staff have with potential employees that they intend to hire using Senate
funds. Such disclosure would include connections such as close personal
friends and family of other parliamentarians.

20

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Findings specific to the Office of the Speaker of the Senate
The Speaker’s office lacked control and oversight
What we found

107. We found that there was a lack of financial management controls
and oversight for certain expenditures incurred by the Office of the
Speaker. The Speaker of the Senate during the period covered by our audit
was the Honourable Noël Kinsella.
108. The financial management rules, policies, and guidelines that
specifically applied to Senators did not apply to the Speaker’s office. While
the Speaker and his staff had adopted some practices and procedures to
promote transparency, accountability, and economy, there was a lack of
formal rules, policies, or guidelines applying to the financial affairs of the
Speaker’s office.

Controls, systems,
and practices

109. Public funds need to be managed and handled prudently and
economically. This requires the exercise of sound financial management
and control; it also means that systems, practices, and resources should be
in place to ensure that
• assets are safeguarded;
• resources are used effectively, efficiently, and economically;
• accountabilities for financial management are clearly established
and respected;
• effective internal controls are established; and
• the Canadian public is provided with pertinent and reliable
information on the use of public funds.
110. The Speaker’s office had a budget of $544,900 for the 2011–12 fiscal
year and $490,410 for the 2012–13 fiscal year. The Speaker’s budget was
for expenses such as staff salaries, hospitality, and the Speaker’s car
expenditures. The budget for the Speaker’s office is in addition to the
budget that the Speaker receives as an individual Senator.
111. In addition to being a Senator, the Speaker of the Senate presides
over the business of the Senate. The Speaker’s duties include ceremonial
functions, such as receiving diplomats and representing the Senate or
Canada at national and international events.
112. The former Speaker stated that his office had adequate financial
management and controls and oversight in place, considering the size of
his office. The former Speaker also stated that his office worked closely
with the Senate Administration to ensure due regard for public funds.

Senators’ Expenses

21

 113. Nonetheless, we found considerable weaknesses in certain financial
management and control practices in several areas of the Speaker’s office.
Several examples follow.
• We found hospitality expenses that were incurred without purchase
orders or contracts to define the terms of agreement.
• We found that the same employee who ordered goods or services also
signed for their delivery and was responsible for maintaining the
inventory of the goods. This is inconsistent with sound financial
control practices and, more specifically, it is inconsistent with the
segregation of duties in the context of the procurement of goods.
• The former Speaker stated that inventory items and other purchases
were supported by invoices and payments. However, we found no
evidence of an effective tracking mechanism for the inventory and
use of alcohol for receptions and ceremonial events.
• We found that no record was maintained of the recipients of gifts
purchased from the Parliamentary Boutique.
• We found that the former Speaker’s staff applied the former
Speaker’s automated signature to travel claims, contract renewals,
and approvals for staff vacation leave without sufficient evidence that
the former Speaker had approved the use of his signature. The former
Speaker stated that, before he authorized the use of his automated
signature, letters or documents were sent to him by email, or read to
him over the phone. In the absence of documentation showing the
former Speaker’s authorization, either through an email or a formal
delegation, there was no way to establish whether his automated
signature was authorized each time it was used.

Why this matters

114. Significant deficiencies in financial management and control of the
expenses of the Office of the Speaker could result in the improper use of
public funds.

Recommendations

115. The Speaker of the Senate of Canada should ensure that the
financial management practices of the Office of the Speaker are consistent
with the rules, policies, and guidelines that apply to all other Senators,
taking into consideration the additional responsibilities of the Speaker.
116. The Speaker should disclose all expenses incurred by the Office of
the Speaker, on the Senate’s website, in a manner consistent with our
recommendation regarding the disclosure of expenses of individual Senators.

22

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Findings reported on individual Senators
What we found

117.

We found that 30 Senators or former Senators

• incurred expenses that we determined were not in accordance
with the applicable Senate rules, policies, or guidelines;
• made claims that were not for parliamentary business; or
• incurred expenses for which there was such a pervasive lack of
evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were
prevented from reaching an audit opinion.
118. We have provided an individual report on each of these Senators and
former Senators in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.

Appendix A—Files
recommended for referral
to other authorities

119. We found nine cases that should be immediately referred to other
authorities, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because of one
or both of the following:
• The Senator or former Senator had made ineligible claims for
living expenses incurred while in the National Capital Region
and other travel expenses when we determined that the Senator or
former Senator had not established a substantive presence at his or
her declared primary residence. In some of these cases, we looked
at living and travel expenses incurred in previous years, to determine
whether there was a pattern of travel that supported or refuted
our finding.
• There was such a pervasive lack of evidence, or significant
contradictory evidence, that we were prevented from reaching an
audit opinion about whether the expenses had been incurred for
parliamentary business.

Living expenses—Expenses allowed to Senators whose primary residence is more than
100 kilometres from the National Capital Region (NCR). They are reimbursed, to a
maximum of $20,000 for the 2011–12 fiscal year and $22,000 for the 2012–13 fiscal year,
for expenses incurred in the NCR for commercial accommodations (such as hotel or motel),
rental accommodations, or having a privately owned secondary residence available to them
in the NCR. Such Senators can also be reimbursed for commercial accommodations and
per diems on weekends if parliamentary functions are performed while in the NCR.
Primary residence—The residence declared by a Senator on a Senate document entitled
“Declaration of Primary and Secondary Residences.” Senators are required to make their
declarations annually, and to amend their declarations if there are any changes in the status
of their residences. In 2013, in its Twenty-Third Report, the Internal Economy Committee
stated that “[…] to claim living expenses in the National Capital Region, any residence
owned or rented by a senator must be a secondary residence for use by the senator while in
the NCR for Senate business. Your committee considers this language to be unambiguous;
and plainly if a senator resides primarily in the NCR, he or she should not be claiming living
expenses for the NCR.”

Senators’ Expenses

23

 Appendix B—Files
recommended for review
by the Standing Senate
Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and
Administration

120. We found 21 cases for which there were expenses incurred by the
Senator or former Senator that were not for parliamentary business or that
we determined were not in accordance with the applicable Senate rules,
policies, or guidelines.
121. We could not accept these expenses as having been incurred for
parliamentary business, because of the nature, significance, or frequency
of the transactions, or because there was insufficient information to
support them. The following are examples:
• There were cases where we determined that Senators arranged travel
using public funds for the primary purpose of attending a personal
event, such as an anniversary celebration or a board meeting, or to
reach a destination that would facilitate a personal trip.
• There were cases where the Senator’s designated traveller (such
as his or her spouse) undertook travel to, or stopped over at, a
destination that was not related to reunification with the Senator
or any other parliamentary business.

Basis for individual
reports

122. Given that Senators are responsible to account for their use of
funds, it is our view that they have an obligation to demonstrate that
the expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, and to provide
supporting documentation for that assertion. Our responsibility was to
conduct an independent examination of Senators’ expenses and other
transactions. Our audit did not involve assessing intent or assigning
blame. Furthermore, we did not conduct an investigation or enquiry that
other authorities may be better equipped to perform, as those authorities
have different powers, duties, and functions.
123. We spent considerable time gaining an understanding of the
approaches taken by Senators and former Senators to perform their
parliamentary duties and functions. We then considered their views and
perspectives, in light of the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, and
we exercised our professional judgment in determining whether their
expenses were incurred for parliamentary business. The fundamental
principle was that public funds should not be used to pay for personal
or private activities.
124. In exercising our professional judgment, we have not reported some
expenses that were technically against the rules. For example, some taxi
expenses for travel from a hotel to the Senate were incurred for health and
safety reasons, given poor weather conditions. Similarly, we found some
claims that had been made or reimbursed as a result of administrative
errors. Given the small amounts involved, we did not treat such expenses
as reportable matters for the purposes of this report.

24

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 125. In those cases where Senators could not provide sufficient and
appropriate evidence, we were not obligated to accept the assertions
they made about their use of funds. As a result, our findings are based
on whether there was sufficient and appropriate audit evidence that
the expenses incurred by Senators were for parliamentary business and
with due regard for the use of public funds. When there was insufficient
evidence or evidence that did not satisfy our audit objective, we
determined that expenses were not incurred for parliamentary business.

Why this matters

126. In our view, Senators and their staff should not claim for expenses
that are not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, or guidelines,
and they should not use public funds for their personal or private activities.
Spending that is ineligible, or that appears to be for personal or private
activities, creates a reputational risk for individual Senators and the Senate
as an institution.

Recommendations

127. The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration should immediately refer the nine individual cases
reported in Appendix A to other authorities, such as the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, for further investigation.
128. The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration should consider the 21 individual cases reported in
Appendix B, to make a final determination about whether the transactions
reported were for parliamentary business and in accordance with the
Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines. The Committee should then
determine whether further action is necessary for those transactions,
and should publish its decisions.

Senators’ Expenses

25

 Conclusion
129. We concluded that not all Senators’ expenses and other Senators’
transactions were properly controlled or incurred for parliamentary
business and with due regard for the use of public funds. While we have
not provided an individual report for 86 Senators and former Senators,
we have provided individual reports for the other 30.
130. We urge the Senate to act on our recommendations and effect
transformative change to the management and oversight of Senators’
expenses.

26

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 About the Audit
The Office of the Auditor General’s responsibility was to conduct an independent, comprehensive
audit of Senate expenses, including Senators’ expenses, and provide objective information, advice,
and assurance to the Senate to assist in the scrutiny of the Senate’s management of resources.
This performance audit is the first in which the Office of the Auditor General has audited expenses
incurred by individual Senators. In this sense, it differs from most of the Office’s performance audits,
in that the subject of the audit was a set of individuals, rather than an institution. The audit results
are therefore reported both for the Senate as a whole and for individual Senators.
All of the audit work in this report was conducted in accordance with the standards for assurance
engagements set out by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA) in the CPA Canada
Handbook—Assurance. While the Office adopts these standards as the minimum requirement for our
audits, we also draw upon the standards and practices of other disciplines.
As part of our regular audit process, we sought confirmation from Senators that the individual
findings attributed to each Senator and reported are factually based.

Objective
The objective of our audit was to determine whether Senators’ expenses and other Senators’
transactions have been properly controlled and incurred for parliamentary business, and with due
regard for the use of public funds.

Scope of the audit
The audit involved examining all expenses incurred or claimed by Senators. The audit did not include
Senators who were the subject of an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Senators
who were deceased before the audit commenced, and one Senator who resigned for mental health
reasons. We examined the expenses incurred by a total of 116 Senators (and former Senators).
(See the list on the next page.)

Senators’ Expenses

27

 The Honourable:
Andreychuk, Raynell
Angus, W. David
Ataullahjan, Salma
Baker, George
Banks, Tommy
Batters, Denise
Bellemare, Diane
Beyak, Lynn
Black, Douglas
Boisvenu, Pierre-Hugues
Braley, David
Brown, Bert
Buth, JoAnne L.
Callbeck, Catherine S.
Campbell, Larry W.
Carignan, Claude
Carstairs, Sharon
Champagne, Andrée
Chaput, Maria
Charette-Poulin, Marie-P.
Cochrane, Ethel M.
Comeau, Gerald J.
Cools, Anne C.
Cordy, Jane
Cowan, James S.
Dagenais, Jean-Guy
Dallaire, Roméo
Dawson, Dennis
Day, Joseph A.
De Bané, Pierre
Demers, Jacques
Di Nino, Consiglio
Downe, Percy E.
Doyle, Norman E.
Dyck, Lillian Eva
Eaton, Nicole
Eggleton, Art
Enverga, Tobias C. Jr.
Fortin-Duplessis, Suzanne

28

Fox, Francis
Fraser, Joan
Frum, Linda
Furey, George
Gerstein, Irving
Greene, Stephen
Hervieux-Payette, Céline
Housakos, Leo
Hubley, Elizabeth
Jaffer, Mobina S. B.
Johnson, Janis G.
Joyal, Serge
Kenny, Colin
Kinsella, Noël A.
Kochhar, Vim
Lang, Daniel
LeBreton, Marjory
Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie
Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M.
MacDonald, Michael L.
Mahovlich, Frank W.
Maltais, Ghislain
Manning, Fabian
Marshall, Elizabeth
Martin, Yonah
Massicotte, Paul J.
McCoy, Elaine
McInnis, Thomas Johnson
McIntyre, Paul E.
Meighen, Michael A.
Mercer, Terry M.
Merchant, Pana
Meredith, Don
Mitchell, Grant
Mockler, Percy
Moore, Wilfred P.
Munson, Jim
Murray, Lowell
Nancy Ruth

Neufeld, Richard
Ngo, Thanh Hai
Nolin, Pierre Claude
Ogilvie, Kelvin Kenneth
Oh, Victor
Oliver, Donald H.
Patterson, Dennis Glen
Pépin, Lucie
Peterson, Robert W.
Plett, Donald Neil
Poirier, Rose-May
Poy, Vivienne
Raine, Nancy Greene
Ringuette, Pierrette
Rivard, Michel
Rivest, Jean-Claude
Robichaud, Fernand
Rompkey, William
Runciman, Bob
Segal, Hugh
Seidman, Judith
Seth, Asha
Sibbeston, Nick G.
Smith, David P.
Smith, Larry
St. Germain, Gerry
Stewart Olsen, Carolyn
Stratton, Terry
Tannas, Scott
Tardif, Claudette
Tkachuk, David
Unger, Betty E.
Verner, Josée
Wallace, John D.
Watt, Charlie
Wells, David M.
White, Vernon
Zimmer, Rod A. A.

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 The audit focused on four areas: travel and hospitality, living expenses, contracting and procurement,
and financial management and staffing practices. All transactions incurred by or on behalf of each
Senator who held office during the period under examination, which was from 1 April 2011 to
31 March 2013, were subject to audit. On an exception basis, we considered transactions from
previous and subsequent years as needed to verify matters that came to our attention.
The audit did not examine the constitutional, legislative, or public policy roles of the Senate of
Canada, its committees, or its Senators; the eligibility of Senators to hold office; or any procedural
aspects of the Senate or its committees. The audit was not a follow-up audit of all areas examined
or reported in the Auditor General’s 2012 report on the Administration of the Senate of Canada.

Audit approach
We considered the nature of the audit and the work of Senators in developing our approach to the
audit, collecting information, and reporting on results.
The audit team spent a considerable amount of time acquiring knowledge and gaining an
understanding of the Senate and its operations, and of each Senator’s parliamentary roles, activities,
and interests, both outside of and inside the Senate, in order to fully understand the context within
which each Senator operated. This knowledge was gathered through interviews with each Senator and
with the Senator’s staff, a review of documents and websites, and, in some cases, information from
third parties. In many cases, this led to detailed questions of Senators and care being taken to not
make assumptions about the roles and responsibilities of Senators.
We came to understand that each Senator was unique in the approach to his or her role.
Recognizing the diversity of their roles, and the various expenses incurred by each Senator for
parliamentary business, we decided to examine 100 percent of the transactions incurred by or on
behalf of each Senator who held office during the period under examination, including the many
types of items involved, such as international travel, per diem claims, and the use of postage.
This decision meant that we audited more than 80,000 expense items, totalling $45 million, that
were recorded by the Senate Administration on behalf of Senators during the period under audit.
Auditing standards require us to determine whether we have sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
In doing so, we recognize that the relevance and reliability of audit evidence varies. For example,
documentary evidence is generally more reliable than oral representations. Therefore, to support any
oral representations from Senators, we looked for corroborating evidence to support every expense
claim and any other transactions they may have undertaken.
Having considered the information provided by Senators, and the Senate’s rules, policies, and
guidelines, we examined whether the purpose of each expense claimed was for parliamentary
business. We also examined the financial and human resource management practices of each
Senator to determine whether he or she provided proper control over the use of public funds. Finally,
we reviewed each transaction to determine whether the Senator considered the cost to taxpayers.
Sources of information for the audit included documentation held by the Senate Administration and
Senators; electronic calendars; interviews with Senators, their staff, and the Senate Administration;
Senate policies, rules, and guidelines; and third-party confirmations as required.

Senators’ Expenses

29

 Criteria
Criteria

Sources

To determine whether Senators’ expenses and other Senators’ transactions have been properly
controlled and incurred for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public funds,
we used the following criteria:
1. Travel and hospitality expenses

Parliament of Canada Act

1.1 Procedures and practices have been established
by Senators and their staff so that their travel
and hospitality expenses and those of their staff
are in accordance with applicable policies, rules,
and regulations, and with due regard for the use
of public funds.

Senate Administrative Rules
Policies, guidelines, forms, and practices of the Senate;
the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration; or the Clerk of the Senate

1.2 Travel and hospitality claims are supported,
properly reviewed, authorized, recorded, and
incurred for parliamentary business and with
due regard for the use of public funds.
2. Living expenses

Parliament of Canada Act

2.1 Procedures and practices have been established
by Senators and their staff so that Senators’ living
expenses are in accordance with applicable
policies, rules, and regulations, and with due
regard for the use of public funds.

Senate Administrative Rules
Policies, guidelines, forms, and practices of the Senate;
the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration; or the Clerk of the Senate

2.2 Living allowances claimed and paid to Senators
are supported, properly reviewed, authorized,
recorded, and incurred for parliamentary
business and with due regard for the use of
public funds.
3. Contracting and procurement

Parliament of Canada Act

3.1 Procedures and practices have been established
by Senators and their staff so that the acquisition
of goods and services and the expenditure of
funds are in accordance with applicable policies,
rules, and regulations, and with due regard for
the use of public funds.

Senate Administrative Rules
Policies, guidelines, forms, and practices of the Senate;
the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration; or the Clerk of the Senate

3.2 Contracting and procurement expenditures
are supported, properly reviewed, authorized,
recorded, and incurred for parliamentary
business and with due regard for the use of
public funds.

30

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Criteria

Sources

To determine whether Senators’ expenses and other Senators’ transactions have been properly
controlled and incurred for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public funds,
we used the following criteria: (continued)
4. Financial management and staffing practices
4.1 Procedures and practices are in place in
Senators’ offices that provide a clear and
suitable framework for ensuring that the
financial management aspects of their office
are managed efficiently, effectively, and with
due regard for the use of public funds.

Parliament of Canada Act
Senate Administrative Rules
Policies, guidelines, forms, and practices of the Senate;
the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration; or the Clerk of the Senate

4.2 Procedures and practices have been
implemented by Senators so that staffing
activities are administered in accordance with
applicable policies, rules, and regulations.
4.3 Procedures and practices are implemented
by Senators and their staff so that Senators’
offices provide relevant and useful information
to stakeholders.

As part of our normal audit process, we sent correspondence to each Senator and former Senator
at the start of the audit, seeking his or her confirmation of the suitability of the criteria used in
the audit and informing him or her of the scope and approach to the audit. We also stated our
expectations of accessing and receiving information necessary to complete our audit procedures
and the confidentiality that we required while the audit was in process.
In the process of requesting access to documents, we informed Senators and former Senators that
we did so pursuant to our powers under the Auditor General Act. Consequently, the disclosure
of these documents to the Office of the Auditor General was in compliance with the statutory
requirements contained in the Act and did not, in our view, reduce or compromise any privileges
attached to the documents. We also confirmed that all documents disclosed to the Office of the
Auditor General for these purposes would be treated in strict confidence.

Cost
Information about the cost of this audit is available on our website.

Senators’ Expenses

31

 Period covered by the audit
The audit covered the period between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2013. Audit work for this report
was completed on 22 April 2015.
After this date and before publication, we received and published comments from Senators and former
Senators. Their comments have been reproduced in the language received verbatim, except where
square brackets [ ] indicate otherwise. We have indicated where the Office of the Auditor General of
Canada has translated the Senators’ comments. We considered the comments received from Senators
when finalizing our report.

Audit team
Assistant Auditor General: Clyde MacLellan
Principal: Gordon Stock
Lead Director: Susan Gomez
Director: Michelle Robert
Director: Chantal Thibaudeau
In addition to the individuals listed above, many other staff within the Office of the Auditor General
of Canada contributed to this audit. Their commitment was essential to its completion.

32

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 List of Recommendations
The following is a list of recommendations found in this report. The number in front of the
recommendation indicates the paragraph where it appears in the report. The numbers in parentheses
indicate the paragraphs where the topic is discussed.
Recommendations

Oversight of Senators’ expenses
51.
The Senate of Canada should review the mandate and structure of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, as well as the reporting relationship of the internal auditor, with the
objective of creating independent oversight of Senators’ expenses.
52.
The oversight of Senators’ expenses should be performed by a body (the “oversight body”), the majority of
whose membership, including its chair, is independent of the Senate. The members of this oversight body should be
selected so that their collective skills, knowledge, and experience enable the oversight body to carry out its duties
thoroughly and efficiently.
53.

The mandate of the oversight body should include

• a role of contributing to the development and interpretation of rules, policies, and guidelines that apply
to the expenses of Senators;
• the authority to review expenses incurred by individual Senators and all relevant documentation;
• the authority to make final decisions on whether those expenses comply with the rules, policies,
and guidelines, and whether amounts should be repaid by Senators; and
• the exclusive authority to hire and terminate the Senate’s internal auditor, and to approve the terms
of reference and mandate of the internal auditor.
54.
The meetings of the oversight body should be open to the public, and all its reports, minutes, decisions,
and reasons should be published on the Senate’s website.
55.
The oversight body should have direct access to the Senate’s internal and external auditors. The auditors
should present their internal and external audit plans and reports to the oversight body and those plans and reports
should be made public on the Senate’s website. These plans should include a regular compliance element involving
an examination of whether the expenses incurred by an appropriate sample of individual Senators are in
accordance with the applicable rules, policies, and guidelines.
56.
The oversight body should have the power to request that internal or external audits be performed on any
matter within the authority conferred upon it.
57.
The Auditor General of Canada should be given a clear mandate as the external auditor to conduct audits
of the Senate of Canada, including audits of Senators’ expenses. The Auditor General should have unrestricted
access to all information needed to reach audit conclusions on the expenses incurred by Senators, including
information in the possession of individual Senators.
(paragraphs 35–50)

Senators’ Expenses

33

 Recommendations

Control framework for Senators’ expenses
73.
Senators should collectively determine a core set of principles that weigh the cost to taxpayers against the
expenditures necessary to conduct parliamentary business. The Senate of Canada should ensure that the applicable
rules, policies, and guidelines comply with those principles, and that transactions of Senators reflect the application
of those principles.
74.
The Senate should enhance the training and guidance provided to all Senators and their staff to ensure
that there is a consistent understanding and application of the principles and the rules, policies, and guidelines that
are used to implement those principles.
75.
The Senate should ensure that the Senate Administration is provided with the same training and guidance
to ensure that its understanding and application of the principles, rules, policies, and guidelines support the
Senators and their staff in the management of expenses.
76.
The Senate should request that the Senate Administration prepare strategies and implementation plans to
assist the Senate and individual Senators in reducing the cost to taxpayers of their future expenses.
(paragraphs 58–72)
90.
Senators should ensure that complete documentation and explanations are submitted to the Senate
Administration to support their expense claims, including full descriptions of the parliamentary business conducted
and evidence of any work performed by contractors.
91.
All Senators should use the Senate electronic calendar, or a paper-based equivalent, to record all their
activities, and these records should be archived on a regular basis. Notations for each item in the calendar should
include a description of the activity, its connection to the Senator’s parliamentary business, whether any meals were
provided, and any component of personal or private activities. The Senate Administration should be provided with
access to the Senator’s electronic calendar, or copies of the Senator’s paper-based equivalent, for the purpose of
processing expenses and reimbursement claims.
(paragraphs 77–89)

34

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Recommendations

Disclosure of information by Senators
96.
Senators should fully disclose their use of public funds. In this disclosure, they should provide information
about their budgets and fully itemize and disclose all their individual expenses on the Senate’s website, in a format
that is accessible, clear, and easy to navigate. At a minimum, these expenses would include living expenses, travel,
hospitality, contracts, other amounts paid directly by the Senate of Canada and allocated to individual Senators,
other office expenses, and any costs for their work with associations, committees, and exchanges. The disclosures
should provide sufficient information at the level of individual transactions, including
• the parliamentary purpose for all components of the expense;
• the date the expense was incurred or the period covered by the expense;
• whether any direct costs were incurred by the Senate as a result of personal activities, and the corresponding
reimbursement;
• in the case of travel claims, the names of the travellers and the number of travel points used;
• a breakdown of the main components of the cost incurred (such as airfare, per diems, accommodations, and
other transportation costs); and
• whether any of the costs were recovered from third parties and the extent of the recovery.
97.
The Senate Administrative Rules and Senate policies and guidelines should also be publicly available on
the Senate’s website.
(paragraphs 92–95)
104.
Senators should disclose to the Senate Administration any close personal or business relationships, or
outside interests, that pertain to their individual travel and hospitality expenses. Senators should also disclose any
relationships or outside interests when renting accommodations or office space from another party.
105.
Senators should publicly disclose, on the Senate website, any close personal or business relationships,
or outside interests, that they or their staff have with contractors they intend to engage using Senate funds.
106.
Senators should publicly disclose, on the Senate website, any close personal or business relationships, or
outside interests, that they or their staff have with potential employees that they intend to hire using Senate funds.
Such disclosure would include connections such as close personal friends and family of other parliamentarians.
(paragraphs 98–103)

Senators’ Expenses

35

 Recommendations

Findings specific to the Office of the Speaker of the Senate
115.
The Speaker of the Senate of Canada should ensure that the financial management practices of the Office
of the Speaker are consistent with the rules, policies, and guidelines that apply to all other Senators, taking into
consideration the additional responsibilities of the Speaker.
116.
The Speaker should disclose all expenses incurred by the Office of the Speaker, on the Senate’s website,
in a manner consistent with our recommendation regarding the disclosure of expenses of individual Senators.
(paragraphs 107–114)

Findings reported on individual Senators
127.
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration should immediately
refer the nine individual cases reported in Appendix A to other authorities, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, for further investigation.
128.
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration should consider the
21 individual cases reported in Appendix B, to make a final determination about whether the transactions reported
were for parliamentary business and in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines. The Committee
should then determine whether further action is necessary for those transactions, and should publish its decisions.
(paragraphs 117–126)

36

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Appendix A

Files recommended for referral to other authorities

In our audit of Senators’ expenses, we found nine cases that we have recommended for immediate
referral to other authorities, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In each of these cases,
we found one or both of the following:
• The Senator or former Senator had made ineligible claims for living expenses incurred while
in the National Capital Region and other travel expenses when we determined that the Senator
or former Senator had not established a substantive presence at his or her declared primary
residence. In some of these cases, we looked at living and travel expenses incurred in previous
years to determine whether there was a pattern of travel that supported or refuted our finding.
• There was such a pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were
prevented from reaching an audit opinion about whether the expenses had been incurred for
parliamentary business.
The nine Honourable Senators and former Senators who are included in this category are:
Page

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu ....................................
Sharon Carstairs (resigned) ...............................
Marie-P. Charette-Poulin (resigned) ..................
Colin Kenny .....................................................
Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (retired) .......................
Donald H. Oliver (retired) .................................
William Rompkey (retired) ................................
Gerry St. Germain (retired) ...............................
Rod A. A. Zimmer (resigned) ............................

39
43
45
47
49
51
55
57
61

Notes:
• Some of the individual reports of Senators’ expenses indicate amounts repaid after 5 June 2013. This was the date that
the motion to invite the Auditor General of Canada to conduct an audit of Senators’ expenses was introduced in the Senate.
Repayments made after 5 June 2013 did not affect our analysis of whether the reported expenses and other transactions have
been properly controlled and incurred for parliamentary business. Any repayments after 6 May 2015 were not included in
these amounts.
• In a number of cases, we have reported that certain expenses were not “primarily” for parliamentary business because
the use of Senate resources was not consistent with the provisions of the Senate Administrative Rules. The Senate
Administrative Rules state that Senators may not use Senate resources except to carry out parliamentary functions,
but incidental personal use of Senate resources is permitted. Such incidental use must be minor, and must not give rise
to a Senate expense. In our audit work, we identified instances where Senators used Senate resources, but the Senators’
parliamentary business was incidental to other activities undertaken by the Senator.

Senators’ Expenses

37

 Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu
Province: Quebec
Appointment date: 29 January 2010
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

See below

Observations—general
1. On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the Senator’s
expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, and with due regard for the use of public funds.
We found expenses of $61,076 for which we had conflicting or insufficient information to determine
that they had been incurred for parliamentary business.

Findings—residency
We found several instances where expenses claimed by the Senator were ineligible for reimbursement
because he had not updated his declaration of primary residence.
2. According to the Senator’s annual declarations of primary and secondary residences, his primary
residence was located in Sherbrooke, Quebec. We expected the Senator’s travel patterns to reflect
that situation.
3. We found a change in the duration of trips between the Senator’s declared primary residence
and the National Capital Region. From January 2012 to December 2012, the Senator spent 45 days
in Sherbrooke, compared with 90 days spent there during the other periods covered by the audit.
The remaining days were spent in Ottawa or elsewhere. Further, we found that the Senator spent
more time in the Ottawa area than he had in the preceding period, including days when the Senate was
not sitting. The Senator stated that he had made several same-day round trips. We found that from
March 2013, the Senator resumed residence near Sherbrooke. On the basis of the information that was
available to us, we determined that the Senator’s primary residence during 2012 was in the Ottawa
area. The Senator thus claimed for expenses that would not have been eligible for reimbursement if
he had declared his primary residence to be in the Ottawa area. The expenses totalled $15,826,
including accommodation expenses and per diems. This figure includes $908 repaid by the Senator
in March 2013 for the months of July and August 2012, after an internal investigation conducted by
the Senate. During the period from January 2012 to December 2012, the Senator made a number of
trips from the National Capital Region to Sherbrooke that were not for parliamentary business in the
amount of $5,529, including mileage and per diems.

Senators’ Expenses

39

 Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator about which there was conflicting
or insufficient information to determine whether they were incurred for parliamentary business.
4. Before his appointment, the Senator gave speeches and provided comments during radio broadcasts
on behalf of an organization founded and headed by him. The Senator stated that during the speeches,
he sold the book he had written, and that the profits went into a fund managed by the organization
he headed up until the time of his appointment. After his appointment, the Senator continued to
conduct those activities. He received reimbursement of his claims for travel expenses and per diems
in connection with the activities. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses
Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. Given the conflicting information, the fact
that the trips were incurred to pursue the Senator’s personal interests, and the lack of other
information, we were unable to determine whether the expenses were for parliamentary business.
These expenses totalled $38,577 and included mainly mileage and accommodation expenses, as well as
per diems.

Findings—other
We found several instances where the Senator incurred expenses that were not for parliamentary
business or were not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.
5. We determined that hospitality expenses incurred by the Senator, totalling $399, were not for
parliamentary business.
6. We determined that $745 in expenses, including postage for mailing copies of the Senator’s
book and taxi expenses, were personal and thus not eligible for reimbursement under Senate policies.

The Senator’s comments
[Translation]
1- Residency
• Throughout the audit period, my primary residence was at 1633 Morand St. in Sherbrooke.
I still own the property.
• During the period, I was in the process of a separation. However, I continued to live in
Sherbrooke until April 2013.
• All my personal documentation showed Sherbrooke as my address: my driver’s licence,
health insurance and credit cards, and various permits.
• For income tax purposes, my primary residence was Sherbrooke.
• Almost all my personal belongings were in Sherbrooke.
• Bills were issued in my name (utilities, taxes, insurance and maintenance). I paid for all
expenses of the residence, including my spouse’s expenses.
• Sherbrooke was my primary residence under the rules of the Senate, the Civil Code of Québec,
and income tax rules.

40

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 • All my personal, family, and social ties were to Sherbrooke. A temporary absence from my
residence is not relevant.
• In July and August 2012, I filed claims for private accommodation expenses. I subsequently
voluntarily repaid the amounts received.
2- Travel
• On 6 occasions in 2012, because of my mother’s illness and death, I travelled between Ottawa
and Saint-Jérôme. I changed my destination at the last minute and omitted to inform my staff.
No claim for travel expenses ought to have been filed. This was an error on my part and I am
willing to repay the difference, as I told the OAG several months ago.
• During the audit period, all other travel was to Sherbrooke.
• The speeches and radio broadcasts in which I participated in my capacity as an advocate for
victims’ rights were all for parliamentary business.
• I receive no remuneration for giving the speeches or for book sales at the events.
• This work of raising awareness is an integral part of my duties as a Senator. I agreed to represent
victims of crime and their families. It is unthinkable that I would be able to perform this work
without travelling outside Ottawa.
• My presentations can be found at www.boisvenu.ca.
• The fact that a parliamentarian advocates for a cause before, during or after his time as a
legislator has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the advocacy is or is not part of his
duties as a parliamentarian.
3- Other
• As part of my work, I receive a number of stakeholders in my office and sometimes offer them
refreshments.
• As an advocate for the rights of victims and their families, I sometimes send copies of my book
or other publications. Giving a voice to the voiceless is part of my duties as a parliamentarian.
I regret that, instead of taking into account the arguments that I presented in our discussions,
the OAG has maintained positions adopted even before our first meeting.
I am willing to abide by the decision of the Internal Economy Committee.
I think it is important for the Committee to carefully consider the issues raised by the OAG,
that is, the concept of primary residence and the definition of parliamentary business.

Senators’ Expenses

41

 Senator Sharon Carstairs (resigned)
Province: Manitoba
Appointment date: 15 September 1994
Resignation date: 17 October 2011
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$7,528

Findings—residency
We found several instances of expenses claimed by the Senator that were ineligible because of an
incorrect declaration of her primary residence.
1. The Senator’s declared primary residence was in Winnipeg and her declared secondary residence
was in Ottawa. The Senator stated that she sold her home in Manitoba on 1 June 2011, she paid
income taxes to that province, and held a driver’s licence, vehicle registration, and health card from
that same province. Given these declarations, a normal travel pattern would involve regular travel
from Winnipeg to Ottawa and back, with much of the Senator’s time being spent in Winnipeg.
2. Of the 61 days during the audit period before the Senator sold her residence in Winnipeg, the
Senator stayed 8 days in Winnipeg and 22 days in Ottawa. To better assess the Senator’s travel
pattern, we reviewed the Senator’s expense claims for the 2010–11 fiscal year, before the audit period,
and found that the Senator spent only 32 days in Winnipeg during that period, and at least 153 days
in Ottawa. We based our analysis on available travel and telecommunications records.
3. We found that the Senator spent extended periods of time in Ottawa. Accordingly, we determined
that the Senator’s primary residence was in Ottawa. We also found that, when the Senator travelled to
Winnipeg, she regularly rented a vehicle at her own expense.
4. From 1 April to 31 May 2011, the Senator claimed for living expenses that would not have been
allowed if she had declared Ottawa as her primary residence. Those living expenses, including 61 days
for accommodations and 8 days for per diems, totalled $2,399.
5. After her resignation in October 2011, the Senator claimed $5,129 to travel from Ottawa to
Winnipeg and back. Senate rules permitted travel between the Senator’s residence and Ottawa after
resignation, to complete parliamentary business. However, given that the Senator’s primary residence
was in Ottawa at the time of her resignation, we determined that this claim was not eligible.

The former Senator’s comments
The audit states that my primary residence was not Winnipeg. All my documentation would indicate
otherwise. I owned a home until June 1, 2011 and farmland property until 2012. I voted provincially
and federally in Manitoba. I paid taxes provincially and federally in Manitoba. My health care card,
my driver’s licence, vehicle registration and my bank accounts were all in Manitoba. This complied
with the recommendations of the Law Clerk of the Senate. There are no rules with respect to the

Senators’ Expenses

43

 number of days which must be spent in the primary residence. Had such rules existed I would have
fulfilled them as I did all other rules in the Senate. The first mention of days spent as a factor in
primary residence was in the Deloitte Audit of May 2013 and I had been retired for 18 months.
No change to the rules has been made to the number of days spent since that time. However if such a
rule had existed it would have significantly reduced the number of speeches that I gave throughout the
country on the topics of Palliative Care and Aging based on reports tabled and unanimously approved
in the Senate in 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2010. Senators were limited in the number of travel points
and had I needed to use the majority of these points to go to Manitoba I would have been unable to
promote the work of the Senate in these critical areas.
Senate Administrative Rules (SARS), and the Senate Travel Guidelines state that upon retirement a
Senator is entitled for the purpose of closing the Senator’s office and otherwise winding up Senator’s
parliamentary affairs to 4 travel points allotted during the one year period from the day the person
ceased to be a Senator. These are found in Section 21 of the Travel Guidelines and Section 7 of the
SARS. I took a trip to Manitoba on October 31, 2011 following retirement on October 17, 2011,
in order to wind up my affairs. I did media work, spoke to a school, did a debriefing of former staff
and met with the Executive Director of the Canadian Virtual Hospice a program whose original
funding had been granted when I was Government Leader in the Senate and Minister with
Special Responsibility for Palliative Care. I used only 1 of the 4 travel points and charged only my
Airfare and Airport Parking. I believed that to be well within the rules of the Senate of Canada.
This claim was paid by Senate Finance without question although it clearly stated the travel was
from Ottawa-Winnipeg-Ottawa.
Should The Internal Economy Committee of the Senate upon receipt of the audit decide that I have in
some way misinterpreted the rules of the Senate then I will abide by their decision. However I do not
believe that at any time that I was in the Senate did I fail to respect either the letter or the spirit of the
rules of the Senate.

44

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Marie-P. Charette-Poulin (resigned)
Province: Ontario
Appointment date: 21 September 1995
Resignation date: 17 April 2015
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)
Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

See below
$5,606

Observations—general
1. On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the Senator’s
expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, and with due regard for the use of public funds.
We found expenses of $131,434 for which we had conflicting or insufficient information to determine
that they had been incurred for parliamentary business.
2. After our initial review of the Senator’s expenses, we requested information on 31 March 2014
about the expenses she incurred, and we met with her six times between 10 April and 23 June 2014
to ask questions and receive her responses.
3. On 24 June 2014, we told the Senator that we would be requesting access to all emails for the
audit period and seeking third-party confirmation of certain transactions or events. On 15 July 2014,
we met with the Senator to discuss our 24 June 2014 letter. On 17 July 2014, we asked the Senator to
provide the information that we had requested by 31 July 2014. On 31 July 2014, the Senator asked
for clarifications, and stated that she was still considering our information request. On 10 September
2014, we gave the Senator clarifications, and we again asked for the information. On 26 September
and 17 October 2014, we again requested access to emails.
4. On 13 November 2014, we met with the Senator’s lawyer to discuss our request for information
and access to emails. On 17 November 2014, we wrote to the Senator’s lawyer, confirming that
we had discussed our need for information, and discussed timelines for receiving that information.
On 12 December 2014, we met with the Senator’s lawyer to provide information on our preliminary
observations. We again asked for access to all emails. We asked for further information on
26 January 2015, and received some information on 23 February and 30 March 2015. We were
not given access to all the requested information and emails.

Senators’ Expenses

45

 Observations—travel
We found several instances where there was conflicting or insufficient information that prevented us
from determining that travel expenses claimed by the Senator had been incurred for parliamentary
business.
5. The Senator worked as counsel for a law firm. The Senator incurred travel expenses, to a
maximum amount of $31,161, for trips where we were unable to determine whether they were for
parliamentary business, personal activities, or activities for the law firm.
6. The Senator incurred travel expenses, to a maximum amount of $9,717, for which we were
unable to determine whether they were for parliamentary business or for personal activities, including
visiting family members and supporting her spouse’s business activities.

Observations—goods and services
We found that there was conflicting or insufficient information that prevented us from determining
whether contracting expenses were for parliamentary business.
7. In reviewing contract expenses the Senator incurred, we received documentation from the Senate,
some verbal and written information from the Senator, and other documentation from the Senator
on 23 February 2015. We found that there were inconsistencies between the documentation received
from the Senate, the verbal and written information provided by the Senator, the documents that we
received on 23 February 2015, and information received from one contractor. For a second contractor,
we found that 13 of the 14 invoices submitted had discrepancies, in the work performed and the
hours billed. Based on the information available, the amount for which we were unable to determine
whether the expenses were for parliamentary business was $82,746.

Observations—other
We found other expenses that we were unable to determine were for parliamentary business or that
were not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.
8. The Senator incurred hospitality expenses, to a maximum amount of $5,755, where we were
unable to determine whether they were for parliamentary business, personal activities, or activities
for the law firm.
9. We found several other expenses where we were unable to determine whether they were for
parliamentary business or personal activities. These included $1,443 for taxis and $612 for couriers
and other office expenses.

The former Senator did not provide comments for publication
Information, representations, and submissions provided by the former Senator were considered
throughout this audit and are reflected in our findings and conclusions. The former Senator did
not confirm the facts in this report or provide a response in time to meet our publication deadline.

46

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Colin Kenny
Province: Ontario
Appointment date: 29 June 1984
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

See below

Observations—general
On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the Senator’s
expenses were incurred primarily for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public
funds.
1. Information we received from the Senator was not consistent with other information provided
to us. As had been the case since before our audit period, the Senate Administration, at the request
of the Senator, did not back up his electronic calendar file. The Senator provided us with a printed
copy of his calendar for the audit period, and later provided us with an electronic version. We noted
discrepancies between these versions. The Senator stated that, in his view, the discrepancies were
not significant.

Observations—travel
We found several instances where there was conflicting or insufficient information that prevented
us from determining that travel expenses claimed by the Senator had been incurred primarily for
parliamentary business.
2. The Senator stated that he was not a member of any standing Senate committees during the audit
period, but promoted change in his areas of interest through the media, often by writing editorial
opinions. His primary residence was in Ottawa, and he travelled to meet individuals and media
representatives as part of promoting his areas of interest.
3. The Senator incurred travel expenses of at least $35,549 for which we have insufficient or
conflicting documentation to determine whether the trips were primarily for parliamentary business.
Several of these trips included single short meetings pertaining to his parliamentary business, but
began with or were followed by personal activities.

Observations—goods and services
We found that there was conflicting information that prevented us from determining whether services
provided by the Senator’s staff were for parliamentary business.
4. The Senator paid salaries and benefit expenses to staff for work that may not have been for
parliamentary business. We found that staff performed numerous tasks that were not related to
regular office operations, but instead to the Senator’s personal activities. These tasks included
payments of personal invoices, maintenance of personal books and records, planning of various

Senators’ Expenses

47

 personal activities, and scheduling of personal appointments. During our discussions with the
Senator, we noted that, in his opinion, these activities did not account for a significant portion of his
staff ’s time. However, because of conflicting information about the extent of the Senator’s personal
activities undertaken by one of these staff positions and insufficient information about other staff
positions, we were unable to reach audit findings as to whether the salaries and benefits were for
parliamentary business.

The Senator’s comments
I do not agree with the conclusions reached in this audit.
I began the audit process with the belief that all my parliamentary expenses were above board and that
transparency was the best policy. In response to the audit team’s initial binder of expense questions
my office and I compiled an exhaustively detailed response binder (24 November 2014) that included
the names of participants for every hospitality or travel meeting, the reason for the meeting and a
compilation of op-eds that were produced largely as a result of those meetings.
After receiving the one and a half pages of preliminary conclusions on 6 March 2015, we began
the process of seeking explanation for the concerns raised over hospitality, travel and staff expenses.
In response to our questions regarding specific expense concerns, we received on 27 March a chart
that broke down the sum total of my travel and hospitality expenses into 269 components. For each
of the expense components, the chart simply denoted that there was “insufficient or conflicting
documentation to conclude that the primary purpose of the expense was parliamentary business.”
They did not address our request for specific concerns and we were still left with no idea of what
the problems were.
It was not until 29 April 2015 (five days before the audit deadline) – after several exchanges with the
audit team – that we received a document that briefly listed concerns for the travel claims in question.
This document was useful in that it was the first chance I had to respond to concerns about my
expenses. It was, however, provided very late in the process. Had it been given to me earlier I would
have been able to more capably defend the use of my expenses.
With regard to travel expenses that were determined not to be primarily for parliamentary purposes,
I was confounded by the reasoning for which the vast majority of trips were flagged. Despite the fact
that Senate rules allow for personal activities, the audit team insisted that virtually any personal
appointments (costing the Senate no money) invalidated an entire trip that had a number of
parliamentary activities. It was repeatedly stated to me that because a personal activity had occurred,
the primary purpose of the trip could not be determined.
Invalidating an entire trip on account of one personal appointment seems disproportionately punitive.
With regard to the appropriation of staff for personal purposes, any work done by staff on personal
tasks was and is in accordance with Senate rule 7.1 in that it is “minor, customary and reasonable and
does not give rise to a direct cost to the Senate or to a Senate expenditure.” An analysis done by my
office on work alleged to have been done by a former staff member was presented to the audit team
that showed personal tasks only amounted to twelve minutes a day on average or 2.5% of time
in office.

48

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (retired)
Province: New Brunswick
Appointment date: 21 March 1995
Retirement date: 18 June 2012
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$110,051

Findings—residency
We found several instances where expenses claimed by the Senator were ineligible for reimbursement
because of an incorrect declaration of her primary residence.
1. According to the Senator’s annual declarations of primary and secondary residences, her primary
residence was located in Moncton, New Brunswick, and her secondary residence in Gatineau,
Quebec. We expected the Senator’s travel patterns to reflect that situation.
2. During the 448 days of the audit period up to the date of her retirement, the Senator spent
16 days in Moncton. To determine whether that was a regular travel pattern, we examined her
travel claims for the 2010–11 fiscal year. We found that the Senator spent 8 days in Moncton
during 2010–11. On the basis of the information that was available to us, we determined that the
Senator’s primary residence during this period was in Gatineau. The Senator therefore claimed living
expenses that would have been ineligible for reimbursement if she had declared her primary residence
to be in Gatineau. Her living expenses, which included 442 days of accommodation expenses and
96 days of per diems, totalled $21,359. Further, the Senator and her spouse made trips between
Ottawa and Moncton that were not for parliamentary business. Total expenses incurred in this travel,
including airfare, per diems, and taxis, amounted to $42,467.

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator where there was insufficient
information to determine whether they were incurred for parliamentary business.
3. The Senator filed expense claims for several trips during the audit period, but she did not keep
her records after she retired in June 2012. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person
who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We did not obtain any detailed
documentation about the purpose of the travel, nor about activities scheduled during the trips. In the
absence of relevant supporting documents, we were unable to determine whether the expenses were
incurred for parliamentary business. The travel expenses totalled $46,225.

Senators’ Expenses

49

 The former Senator’s comments
[Translation]
I hereby provide to you my official response to the OAG’s final conclusions.
On 28 March 2015, I sent the following supporting documents to a member of the audit team:
1) confirmation of my New Brunswick Medicare medical insurance; and
2) my property and municipal taxes assessment notice for Moncton, New Brunswick.
On 8 April 2015, I sent you the following documents:
1) personal identification according to my 2011 income tax return; and
2) a copy of my New Brunswick driver’s licence.
On 11 April 2015, I engaged lawyers to help me complete the necessary research and present
arguments related to my residency in New Brunswick. I subsequently tried to obtain more details on
the exact information that the OAG sought to obtain by requesting a copy of the Senate guidelines,
policies and rules that were in effect before 18 June 2012. I also took all steps necessary to recover
from the Senate archives the documents that might contain the additional information requested
by the OAG.
On 4 May 2015, my lawyers sent you a letter adding to the explanations previously provided and
clearly expressing the responses that I was able to supply to you at this time. In these responses,
I shared with you my concerns with regard to the preliminary conclusions of the OAG. It now appears
that the OAG rejected each of the explanations, additional supporting documents, and arguments
presented in that letter.
Throughout my career in the Senate, I advocated strongly for various causes, including the status of
women in Canada and elsewhere in the world, the advancement of francophone minorities outside
Quebec and many other causes. The OAG deliberately refuses to consider the particular features of
both my work as an Acadian Senator and the expense claims that I submitted, maintaining that the
claims were not for activities related to my role as a Senator.
I carefully followed the Senate rules that were in effect on those dates. I remind you that I retired from
the Senate in June 2012, and therefore any subsequent amendments to the Senate rules cannot apply
retroactively to my years of service.
I can only hope that the OAG will take note of the additional information and arguments supplied in
the letter of 4 May 2015 to review its conclusions.

50

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Donald H. Oliver (retired)
Province: Nova Scotia
Appointment date: 7 September 1990
Retirement date: 16 November 2013
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)
Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

See below
$1,442

Observations—general
On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the expenses
claimed by the Senator were incurred for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of
public funds.
1. We found expenses of $48,088, which we determined were not for parliamentary business, or for
which we had insufficient information to conclude that they had been incurred for parliamentary
business.
2. We requested information from the Senator on 11 August 2014, and received a response
on 29 September 2014. We asked for further information on 9 December 2014 and received a
response on 13 January 2015. In responding to our questions, the Senator stated that his electronic
calendar was not an accurate representation of his activities, and that he did not attend many of the
meetings and receptions that were in his calendar. The Senator did not identify which of the events in
his electronic calendar he did not attend.
3. At the time of reporting, the Senator had not been able to provide supporting documentation for
expense claims that were the subject of our requests. The Senator stated that, being retired, he did not
have access to the information we requested. As a result, the information below represents our work
completed as of the time of finalizing our report.

Observations—travel
We found several instances where there was insufficient information to enable us to determine
whether travel expenses claimed by the Senator had been incurred for parliamentary business.
4. The Senator is a member of a not-for-profit organization that aims to promote the wines, cuisine,
and tourism of a region overseas; he founded the Halifax and Ottawa chapters of the organization.
The Senator claimed travel expenses of $22,982 for trips where we were unable to determine whether
they were for parliamentary business or to attend the organization’s meetings or meetings with other
members of the organization. The Senator was not able to provide evidence that parliamentary
business was conducted in these cases.

Senators’ Expenses

51

 5. We found that the Senator and his spouse claimed travel expenses for personal events, for which
we received no supporting documentation on the purpose of the trips nor on the events that took
place during that time, or that were in excess of the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, including
• a family member’s convocation in Kingston, Ontario, at which, according to the Senator, he
spoke with other attendees about higher education and the role of the Senate;
• golf with former Senators in Montréal;
• meetings with a family member and a tailor; and
• a fishing trip.
In his responses to our requests for information, the Senator provided some general explanations
for these travel events. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate
resources is responsible to account for that use. On the basis of the information available, we
determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of these
trips was $11,252.
6. We also found that the Senator’s spouse did not always travel at the same times or to the same
locations as the Senator. The Senator’s spouse often travelled without the Senator between Ottawa
and their home in Pleasant River, Nova Scotia, travelling to Nova Scotia on a Friday, and returning to
Ottawa on a Sunday. We found that, throughout the audit period, the Senator’s spouse was employed
as a vice-president of an organization in Ottawa. The Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines recognize
that a Senator’s parliamentary functions can result in frequent and lengthy periods of separation from
family and have provided for family-reunion travel as an important contributor to the health and
well-being of Senators and their families. Given that the Senator did not join his spouse on these
occasions, we determined that the travel by the Senator’s spouse was not undertaken for the purposes
of family reunification, but rather, for her personal business reasons. The cost of these trips
was $10,613.
7. The Senator stated that, upon review, certain expenses that we have reported were not
reimbursable. The Senator stated that these claims were submitted in error. He has repaid $1,442,
including for travel to Kingston for a family member’s convocation and travel for the fishing trip.

Observations—staff travel
We found two instances of travel expenses incurred by staff members and approved by the Senator
that were not for parliamentary business.
8. On two occasions, one of the Senator’s staff members drove the Senator’s car from Ottawa to
Halifax and then flew directly back to Ottawa, at a total cost of $1,559.

Observations—other
We found other expenses that we were unable to determine were for parliamentary business or
were not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.
9. We found several other expenses for which there was insufficient evidence of a relation to
parliamentary business, or that were otherwise ineligible under the Senate’s rules, policies, and
guidelines. These expenses, including hospitality, taxis, and courier charges, totalled $1,682.

52

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 The former Senator’s comments
The Auditor General’s purported findings in this document are not factually correct. The findings
misrepresent what the Auditor knows based on the Senator’s previous and patient explanations dated
August 11, 2014, January 13, April 4, and May 5, 2015.
Dr. Oliver has provided detailed responses to all inquiries made, and was only provided with an
opportunity to meet with staff and legal counsel after the Auditor General attempted to renege on
the promise of a pre-report meeting. Even then, these response comments were required before the
Auditor General disclosed the final version of his report.
The Auditor General has declined to disclose his specific concerns with several claims, despite specific
requests from the retired Senator. The Auditor General has previously abandoned several lines of
inquiry after confirming the legitimacy of the retired Senator’s explanations. His office has apparently
now decided that it will stop valuing Dr. Oliver’s word. In doing so, the Auditor General depends on
incorrect and uninformed interpretations of the applicable rules, and uses criteria never before applied
to Senate expenses.
Dr. Oliver frequently sought and obtained authorization from the Senate Finance Directorate for
expense items and activities before they were incurred.
The staff travel claims included in the report were pre-approved, and for amounts far below what
the Senator was permitted to claim.
The Auditor General has made scurrilous and irrelevant comments about the employment of
Dr. Oliver’s wife – which has no connection with any Senate expense claim. The Auditor General’s
opinions about “spousal travel” ignore and do not mention seven distinct and sufficient justifications
for those travel claims.
The Auditor General intends to refer to some claims that have previously been reimbursed by the
Senator which are not outstanding. The report also intends to insinuate that the Senator pursued
private interests at the expense of the Senate without a reasonable factual basis.
Dr. Oliver made his claims in the utmost good faith, and with an honest understanding of approval
based on the guidance of Senate staff. He has remained willing to work with the Senate to resolve any
good faith errors or misunderstandings. That apparently does not suit the objectives or pre­judgment
of the Auditor General.
Dr. Oliver has provided a reasoned justification for each questioned claim based on the
contemporaneous rules, practices, and responsibilities of his Senate business. Rather than including
these in a transparent audit assessment to stand beside the Auditor General’s own proposed
conclusions, the Auditor General has instead chosen to pretend that his report is simply factual
and non-conclusory. In fact, the Auditor General apparently decided some time ago that the Senate
would be incapable of conducting a legitimate process of further review of Dr. Oliver’s claims.
All claims represent expenses incurred in the course of the Senator’s performance of national and
international parliamentary tasks, including the advancement of Diversity issues as the first Black
man appointed to the Senate of Canada.

Subsequent event
On 11 May 2015, we received notice that the Senator intended to make a payment of $21,953.27 to
the Receiver General for Canada.

Senators’ Expenses

53

 Senator William Rompkey (retired)
Province: Newfoundland and Labrador
Appointment date: 21 September 1995
Retirement date: 13 May 2011
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$17,292

Findings—residency
We found several instances of expenses claimed by the Senator that were ineligible because of an
incorrect declaration of his primary residence.
1. The Senator’s declared primary residence was in St. John’s and his declared secondary residence
was in Ottawa throughout the audit period. Given these declarations, a normal travel pattern would
involve regular travel from St. John’s to Ottawa and back, with much of the Senator’s time being
spent in St. John’s.
2. Of the 42 days during the audit period before his retirement, the Senator stayed 8 days
in St. John’s. He spent 26 days in Ottawa. To determine whether this was an ongoing pattern of
travel, we reviewed the Senator’s expense claims for the 2010–11 fiscal year, and found that the
Senator spent 53 days in St. John’s and 161 days in Ottawa during that period. On the basis of
our review of the Senator’s travel patterns and our understanding of his roles and responsibilities,
we found that he spent extended periods of time in Ottawa. Accordingly, we determined that the
Senator’s primary residence was in Ottawa.
3. The Senator claimed for living expenses that would not have been allowed if he had declared
Ottawa as his primary residence. During the audit period, the amount of those living expenses,
including accommodations for 42 days and per diems for 23 days, was $3,134.
4. After his retirement in May 2011, the Senator claimed two trips from Ottawa to St. John’s
and back. Senate rules permitted travel between the Senator’s residence and Ottawa after retirement,
to complete parliamentary business. However, given that the Senator’s primary residence was in
Ottawa at the time of his retirement, we determined that these claims were not eligible. The cost
of the two trips was $14,158.

The former Senator’s comments
I have been retired for 4 years, have had limited access to files and to consultations with Auditor
General staff.
I have reviewed the second audit assessment and do not agree that the conclusions are factually based.
The finding that my primary residence was in Ottawa not St. John’s is at variance with the facts as
well as the 1998 22nd report of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy.

Senators’ Expenses

55

 Mark Audcent, former Law Clerk of the Senate, in sworn testimony before the Ontario Court on
8 April 2015 agreed that the 22nd Report “clearly linked Provincial Residence with being the primary
residence.” And, as the court also heard, the Primary Residence Declaration Form would not permit
me to designate my Ottawa residence as my primary even had I wanted to because, in Mr. Audcent’s
words, “it requires you to say that it’s the residence in the province you represent.”
I represented Newfoundland and Labrador in the Senate from 1995 to 2011, after 23 years representing
it in the House of Commons. Most of my family live there, I paid taxes there, had a NL health card,
voted there, and co-owned a house in St. John’s where I lived when not in Ottawa (and still do). I am
a member of the Naval Officers Association of NL, the Crow’s Nest naval club and continue to be
involved with the Feildians as well as the Alumni of Memorial University, the institution which
conferred on me an honourary LLD for my service to the Province. The Auditor General is applying a
test that was rejected by the former Law Clerk in order to reach a conclusion that is not supported by
my clear and many attachments to my Province while I was a member of the Senate.
The Auditor General has concluded that Ottawa was my primary residence ignoring the testimony
of Mr. Audcent who said there is “no majority of the year requirement in your provincial residence”
when determining Primary Residence. He also ignores that as Fisheries Committee Chair I had to
spend considerable time in Ottawa as well as some 21 days travelling in BC, NS and NL with the
Committee, and several more in Halifax on naval and fisheries business.
Respecting the two post retirement trips I took to NL, Senate Finance explicitly assured me in
emails, which were shared with the Auditor General, that they fell within the rules. The Senate
Clerk’s document Information for Departing Senators indicates that: “A former Senator who retired
or resigned is entitled, for the purpose of closing the Senator’s office and otherwise winding up the
Senator’s parliamentary affairs, to four travel points during a one-year period starting the day the
person ceased to be a Senator. ...” Moreover, I always believed that if there were any problems with
my claims I would be informed by Senate administration as they are obliged to do.

56

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Gerry St. Germain (retired)
Province: British Columbia
Appointment date: 23 June 1993
Retirement date: 6 November 2012
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

See below

Observations—general
On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the Senator’s
expenses were incurred primarily for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public
funds.
1. We found expenses of $55,588 that we determined were not primarily for parliamentary business,
and expenses of at least $12,000 for which we had conflicting or insufficient information to determine
that they had been incurred for parliamentary business.
2. The Senator stated that he shredded his parliamentary documentation and that, consequently,
he did not have sufficient information to answer our questions about each travel claim. Due to this
lack of documentation, the Senator gave us access to electronic records of the emails for his office.
We have based our findings on the information we received.

Observations—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not primarily for
parliamentary business.
3. During the audit period, the Senator made six trips to Edmonton, either as a stopover or as a final
destination. According to the travel claims, the purpose of the travel was to conduct parliamentary
business or meet with First Nations representatives. However, the Senator was an active member
of the board of directors of a private group of companies based in Edmonton and he attended board
meetings during these trips. We determined that the trips were taken to pursue the private business
interests of the Senator. The cost of these trips, including incremental costs of the stopovers, and
including airfare and per diems, was $4,415.

Observations—staff travel
We found several instances of travel expenses incurred by staff members or contractors and approved
by the Senator that were not primarily for parliamentary business.
4. The Senator used his home for fundraising and other events for third parties. During the audit
period, the Senator’s staff attended six events that were held at the Senator’s home: two events in
support of a charity and four political party events. They also attended other events, including his
50th wedding celebration, an awards gala where the Senator was a recipient, and a regional retirement

Senators’ Expenses

57

 party for him. The Senator stated that the Senate’s rules did not prohibit staff travel when it was
required to support Senators within their respective regions and when it was related to public business
deemed to be significant. He further stated that he was rewarding his staff for their hard work and that
the staff worked on constituency and partisan work from his home office during the summer months.
Because these events involved the personal activities of the Senator, we determined that the travel by
staff members was not primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the staff travel was $43,727.

Observations—goods and services
We found that there was conflicting or insufficient information that prevented us from determining
whether contracting expenses were for parliamentary business.
5. We observed that payments were made to a contractor who invoiced the Senator and another
Senator for the same dates. From April to October 2012, we observed that there was a total of
101 days when both Senators had been separately invoiced for 7.5 hours by the contractor on the
same dates. We are concerned that the contractor may have invoiced for work not performed or work
performed beyond the terms of the contract. We also observed that, before he retired, the Senator
amended the contract for the same contractor. The amendment resulted in an increase to the
contractor’s daily rate, and the full amount of the original contract was paid before the Senator’s
retirement. On the basis of the available information, we estimated that the potential amount related
to these issues was at least $12,000.
6. The Senator hired another contractor to help him with communication plans for his retirement.
The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to
account for that use. We received no additional documentation for the work performed. On the basis
of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for
parliamentary business. The amount of this contract was $6,250.

Observations—other
We found other expenses that were not for parliamentary business or were not in accordance with
the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.
7. According to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, it is the responsibility of the Senator
to document the use of gifts and other promotional items that have an individual value over $50.
The Senator incurred expenses for gifts over $50, without adequate documentation. The cost of these
items was $728.
8. The Senator claimed a hospitality expense of $468 for a dinner meeting. The Senator stated
that the purpose of the dinner was to wrap up parliamentary business. However, other information
indicated that this event was a family dinner.

58

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 The former Senator’s comments
Further to your letter of April 22, 2015, and further to my telephone conversation with [a member
of the audit team] of April 30, 2015, I am responding to your letter containing your proposed final
conclusions of your audit of my former Senate office. Let me state that I disagree with the
presentation of your findings.
In my letter of March 27, 2015, I asked [a member of the audit team] to explain the definition of
the term “parliamentary business”, and how the term was being applied against the audit objective.
Your office has not responded.
The presentation and tone of your general observations insinuate that I misappropriated my office
resources in a nefarious manner. I find these apparent accusations to be a defamatory affront to my
personal integrity. I have stated to your auditors time and again that the shredding of my documents
was done as a necessity related to my move to a smaller residence in advance of my prior knowledge
of an audit being conducted. The timing of this event and my full explanation is missing from
your conclusions.
You make note my travel to Edmonton not being for public benefit. Your conclusions fail to mention
that in absence of other supporting documentation, I provided your office with a substantive list of
people to call who could speak to the Parliamentary nature of my work with First Nations in the area.
During these trips, I worked with a number of First Nations people on the development of legislation
to enable First Nations Self Government. Bill S 216, which was tabled on my final day in the Senate,
the Bill’s 4th iteration under my leadership, was a cornerstone work of my career. My trips to
Edmonton encapsulated this and other works of public benefit.
You make note of the travel of my office staff not being for public benefit. Once again, in the absence
of supporting documentation, I provided your office with a substantive list of people to call, including
members of my former staff and other public office holders, who would have been able to speak to the
public business and support to me that my staff provided on these trips. To my knowledge, your office
has not contacted anyone.
With respect to the individuals on contract to my office, I required extra support during my final year.
I demanded significant results from these people and compensated them fairly and within the rules of
the Senate for the work that was performed.
Let me state that the information contained within this response was done by me from memory to
the best of my recollection. I believe I operated within the rules and my office consulted with Senate
Administration on major expenditures to ensure compliance. I am prepared to defend this response
and my previous communications with your office in the public realm if necessary.

Senators’ Expenses

59

 Senator Rod A. A. Zimmer (resigned)
Province: Manitoba
Appointment date: 2 August 2005
Resignation date: 2 August 2013
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$176,014

Findings—residency
We found several instances of expenses claimed by the Senator that were ineligible because of an
incorrect declaration of his primary residence.
1. The Senator’s declared primary residence was in Winnipeg and his declared secondary residence
was in Ottawa throughout the audit period. The Senator stated that he paid income and property
taxes in Manitoba and held a driver’s licence and a health card from that province. Given these
declarations, a normal travel pattern would involve regular travel from Winnipeg to Ottawa and back,
with much of the Senator’s time being spent in Winnipeg. The Senator stated that he had always
considered Winnipeg to be his primary residence but that, for personal reasons, it was necessary for
him to be in Ottawa more frequently.
2. During the audit period, the Senator claimed travel expenses for 24 trips to Winnipeg. For 14 of
these trips, the Senator flew to Winnipeg and returned to Ottawa on the same day. The remaining
10 trips included a total of 19 nights for travel to Winnipeg. Furthermore, in our review of travel
claims and other available information, we found that the Senator stayed in Ottawa for 613 of the
731 days of the audit period. On the basis of our review of the Senator’s travel patterns, including
the fact that he spent extended periods of time in Ottawa with no evidence of parliamentary business
taking place, we determined that the Senator’s primary residence was in Ottawa.
3. The Senator claimed for living expenses that would not have been allowed if he had declared
Ottawa as his primary residence. During the audit period, those living expenses, including
accommodations and per diems, were $47,132. Furthermore, the Senator and his spouse took a
number of round trips from Ottawa to Winnipeg, during which no parliamentary business was
undertaken. The cost of these trips, including airfare, car rentals, taxis, and per diems, was $102,524.

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel and related expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for
parliamentary business.
4. The Senator took four day-trips to Montréal and one trip to Saskatoon, but was not able to
provide information about their purposes. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every
person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional
documentation for the purpose of these trips or the events that took place during them. On the
basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for

Senators’ Expenses

61

 parliamentary business. The cost of these trips, including airfare, mileage, accommodations,
taxis, and per diems, was $6,293.
5. The Senator took a one-day trip to Toronto and another trip to Saskatoon. In the first instance,
the Senator’s calendar indicated a board meeting of a corporation of which he was a director at that
time; the other trip was for personal activities. The cost of the trips, including airfare, taxis, and per
diems, was $3,578.

Findings—goods and services
We found instances of expenses for professional services claimed by the Senator that were not for
parliamentary business.
6. The Senator claimed expenses for two contracts for professional services. One contract related to
the provision of research services. The other contract related to the provision of research and writing
services, including coordination and liaison. The Senator stated that the services related to research
required for a National Defence trip and research on war-torn countries. The Senate Administrative
Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We
received no additional documentation for the purpose of these contracts or work performed for them.
On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred
for parliamentary business. The cost of these two contracts was $12,453.

Findings—other
We found other expenses that were incurred for personal activities; that were ineligible according
to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines; or for which we did not have sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that they were for parliamentary business.
7. According to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, it is the responsibility of the Senator to
provide his own transportation within the National Capital Region, when not engaged in parliamentary
business. We found that the Senator or his spouse incurred expenses of $2,072 for taxis in Ottawa for
personal activities, and expenses of $645 for which there was little or no information to demonstrate
that they were for parliamentary business.
8. According to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, it is the responsibility of the Senator
to document the use of gifts and other promotional items that have an individual value over $50.
Gifts and other promotional items that have an individual value over $100 or are used for fundraising
are not permitted. We found that the Senator incurred expenses totalling $705 for gifts that were
individually greater than $100 or were donated for fundraising raffles, and gifts and other promotional
items totalling $612 that were individually over $50 without any documentation as to whether they
were for parliamentary business.
9. Although the Senator retired after our audit period, we also found that four items, including a
digital camera and computer equipment, had not been returned to the Senate.

62

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 The former Senator’s comments
Since the Auditor General has limited my right to reply to only 500 words, I will focus on the major
issue contained in his report, namely his conclusion with respect to my residency, from which his
findings on my travel claims and living expenses flow.
The Auditor General has concluded that because of my travel patterns and length of time spent in
Ottawa, Ottawa was the location of my primary residence. Unfortunately, serious health concerns,
including recurring throat cancer and pneumonia, required me to cut back on my travel between
Ottawa and my home in Winnipeg, and ultimately led to my early retirement. But in coming to his
conclusion on my residency, the Auditor General has ignored the evidence the former Law Clerk of
the Senate, Mark Audcent, presented under oath before the Ontario Court of Justice in the ongoing
trial of Senator Michael Duffy.
Mr. Audcent has testified that there is “no percentage of the year requirement” for a Senator to be in
his home province for the purposes of residency. He further explained to the court that there were
in his view four categories of what he called “indicators of residence.”
First, there is “physical presence.” I lived in a home in Winnipeg which I purchased in 1981. Second,
“is where you participate in the community.” I paid my taxes in Manitoba, and voted in federal,
provincial and civic elections in that province. Thirdly, “where you get your government services
from.” My health card and driver’s license were from Manitoba, and my vehicles were registered
and plated in Manitoba. And lastly, there is what Mr. Audcent described as “societal relations.”
My parish was the Holy Rosary Church, located a short walk from my home. As a former president
of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, I remain on its board to this day. I also served on the boards of the
Burton Cummings Theatre and the Millennium Centre. I led and participated in major fundraising
drives for charitable causes with other notable Winnipeggers, such as Izzy and Gail Asper.
For this final category, Mr. Audcent told the court “all of those social connections add up to a package
saying this person is resident here.” I agree. Winnipeg was always my home.
Finally, I am not clear how the Auditor General can make a public pronouncement with respect to
Senate residency rules and their application to my circumstances without appearing to be interfering
in the judicial proceedings now taking place in the trial of Senator Duffy, where the issue of residency
and the interpretation of the Senate Rules concerning residency are central to the proceedings. Will
this be seen as prejudging the conclusion Justice Charles Vaillancourt will reach on the same matter,
and what if Justice Vaillancourt does not agree with the Auditor General’s interpretation? The sub
judice principle applies in order to ensure the proper administration of justice, and I am surprised
that it is not being honoured in this instance.

Senators’ Expenses

63

 Appendix B

Files recommended for review by the Standing
Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration

In our audit of Senators’ expenses, we found 21 cases for which
• we could not accept the Senators’ expenses as having been incurred for parliamentary
business, because of the nature or significance of the transactions, or because there was
insufficient information to support them, or
• we determined the expenses were not in accordance with the applicable Senate rules, policies,
or guidelines.
We have recommended that the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration consider the cases of the following 21 Honourable Senators and former Senators
and determine whether further action is necessary, including whether reimbursement of any amount
is required.
Page

Claude Carignan ...................................
James S. Cowan ....................................
Jean-Guy Dagenais ...............................
Joseph A. Day ......................................
Nicole Eaton .........................................
Leo Housakos .......................................
Janis G. Johnson ...................................
Noël A. Kinsella (resigned) ....................
Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas ................
Elaine McCoy .......................................
Terry M. Mercer ...................................

67
69
71
73
77
79
81
85
87
89
91

Page

Pana Merchant ..................................... 93
Lowell Murray (retired) ........................ 95
Dennis Glen Patterson ......................... 97
Robert W. Peterson (retired) ............... 101
Donald Neil Plett ............................... 103
Vivienne Poy (resigned) ...................... 105
Nancy Greene Raine .......................... 107
Nick G. Sibbeston .............................. 109
Terry Stratton (retired) ....................... 113
David Tkachuk .................................. 115

Notes:
• Some of the individual reports of Senators’ expenses indicate amounts repaid after 5 June 2013. This was the date that
the motion to invite the Auditor General of Canada to conduct an audit of Senators’ expenses was introduced in the Senate.
Repayments made after 5 June 2013 did not affect our analysis of whether the reported expenses and other transactions have
been properly controlled and incurred for parliamentary business. Any repayments after 6 May 2015 were not included in
these amounts.
• In a number of cases, we have reported that certain expenses were not “primarily” for parliamentary business because
the use of Senate resources was not consistent with the provisions of the Senate Administrative Rules. The Senate
Administrative Rules state that Senators may not use Senate resources except to carry out parliamentary functions,
but incidental personal use of Senate resources is permitted. Such incidental use must be minor, and must not give rise
to a Senate expense. In our audit work, we identified instances where Senators used Senate resources, but the Senators’
parliamentary business was incidental to other activities undertaken by the Senator.

Senators’ Expenses

65

 Senator Claude Carignan
Province: Quebec
Appointment date: 27 August 2009
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$3,516

Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$3,516

Findings—staff travel
We found instances of travel expenses incurred by a staff member and approved by the Senator
that were not for parliamentary business.
1. A member of the Senator’s staff filed claims for same-day round trips between Ottawa and the
region represented by the Senator, to fill in for or accompany the Senator on parliamentary business.
The employee claimed mileage and per diem expenses. The claims were signed by the employee and the
Senator. Seven of the claims were filed in the 2011–12 fiscal year and eight in the 2012–13 fiscal year.
2. We found that the trips claimed had not involved travel starting from and returning to Ottawa,
as stated by the employee. The employee worked in Ottawa but frequently stayed in Montréal,
particularly when the Senate was not sitting. The activities covered by the travel claims took place
during periods when the employee was staying in the Montréal area. The distance he had to travel
to attend those events was therefore well below the mileage stated in the claims. According to the
Senators’ Travel Policy, employees cannot be reimbursed for travel to their workplace in Ottawa.
3. To determine the extent of this practice, we reviewed claims for travel by the Senator’s staff during
the fiscal year preceding the audit period and the fiscal year following it. We found 12 claims for
similar instances in the 2010–11 fiscal year, but no claims in the 2013–14 fiscal year.
4. The employee confirmed that he had not travelled as stated in the claims. He amended claims for
travel during the audit period and repaid amounts received for ineligible mileage and per diem claims.
The total amount repaid was $3,516.

The Senator’s comments
[Translation]
• When the employee started work, he misunderstood how to interpret and apply the rule
on travel expenses.
• The administrative error was not evident on the claim form.
• Once he was informed of the error, the employee immediately repaid the amount.

Senators’ Expenses

67

 Senator James S. Cowan
Province: Nova Scotia
Appointment date: 24 March 2005
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$10,397

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. On three occasions, the Senator and his spouse travelled to Toronto for the weekend either as a
separate trip or a stopover while returning to Halifax from Ottawa. The purpose given on the claims
for these trips was parliamentary business, including meetings. The Senate Administrative Rules state
that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no
additional documentation or explanations for the purpose of these trips or the events that took place
during that time. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had
not been incurred for parliamentary business. The total cost of the trips, for airfare, taxi, car rental,
accommodations, and per diems, was $10,397.

The Senator’s comments
The three identified trips to Toronto took place over the course of 2011. I submitted the three travel
claims on official Senate travel claim forms, describing the purpose of the trips as “performing Senate
related work” or as “meetings in Toronto related to Senate Business.” The claims were accompanied
by Air Canada boarding passes and receipts. Senate finance officials processed the claims in
accordance with the then current administrative practices, applying the then current expense rules,
and paid the claims as submitted. No request for additional information, explanation or
documentation was made.
I of course agree that I am “responsible to account” for the use of Senate resources, and had I been
asked for more information, documentation or explanation at the time of my claim or shortly
thereafter, I would have readily provided it. However, there having been no requirement under the
Senate expense rules or guidelines to retain any additional documentation or records at the time of
the claims, and with my email Inbox not having been backed up by the Senate for most of the period
in question, it has not been possible to recreate my activities from memory alone.
However, the pattern that emerges from other trips I have made to Toronto over the years and for
which there are records, show meetings with various NGOs, students, educators, health researchers
and practitioners, community leaders, as well as current and former members of Parliament, all of
which related to parliamentary business. Moreover, when I have travelled anywhere on private
business, I have, of course, paid the costs of such travel myself.

Senators’ Expenses

69

 When submitting my claims, I was aware of and believed I could rely on the Senate Administrative
Rules (SARS). Section 2.(1) of chapter 2:05 of those Rules states: “Where a Senator makes a request
to the Senate Administration that appears to be contrary to a law, rule, policy or practice, the Senate
Administration shall advise the Senator and, where a direction exists in writing, refer the senator to
the direction.”
Mr. Mark Audcent, the then Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, authored the Senate
Administrative Rules. In recent sworn testimony before the Ontario Court of Justice he observed
that by virtue of Section 2.(1) there was a “mandatory” duty for the Senate Administration to advise
a Senator if anything appeared “to be out of line” with a particular travel claim. At no time in the
almost four years since I submitted those three claims and was informed that they had been approved
did Senate Finance request additional documentation or explanations. In these circumstances,
I believe it was reasonable for me to conclude that my claims had in fact conformed to all relevant
Senate rules, policies and practices.

70

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais
Province: Quebec
Appointment date: 17 January 2012
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$3,538

Findings—staff travel
We found instances of travel expenses incurred by a staff member and approved by the Senator
that were not for parliamentary business.
1. A member of the Senator’s staff filed claims for same-day round trips starting from and returning
to Ottawa, to assist or accompany the Senator on parliamentary business. The employee claimed
mileage and per diem expenses. The claims were signed by the employee and the Senator. Two such
claims were filed in the 2011–12 fiscal year and 10 in the 2012–13 fiscal year. For most of the trips,
we did not have sufficient information to confirm that the travel had taken place as stated in the
claims. In some instances, telecommunications records suggested that the employee did not return to
Ottawa the same day. Instead, the telecommunications records showed that the employee was in the
Montréal area early in the morning on the day after the event.
2. The employee stated that, although he works in Ottawa, he frequently stays in the Montréal area,
particularly when the Senate is not sitting. He also stated that the travel claims were prepared on the
basis of the principle that employees who work in Ottawa indicate Ottawa as the travel departure
point and final destination. We asked the Senator to provide us with documents to support the travel
claims. The Senator did not provide such documentation. According to the Senators’ Travel Policy,
employees cannot be reimbursed for travel to their workplace in Ottawa.
3. On the basis of the information that was available to us, we determined that the employee
submitted travel claims that did not reflect the distance actually travelled. The total travel costs
were $3,538.
4. To determine the extent of this practice, we reviewed expense claims for travel incurred by the
Senator’s staff after the period of the audit. We found similar expense claims for seven trips in the
2013–14 fiscal year, and seven trips in the 2014–15 fiscal year.

The Senator’s comments
[Translation]
• I completely disagree with the findings of the OAG.
• The OAG’s findings are based on adverse doubts and inferences—not on facts, as they should
have been.
• The employee participated in all the events reviewed by the OAG and we provided
documentation in our possession as required at the time by the Senate finance division.

Senators’ Expenses

71

 • Each of the trips was undertaken to accompany me on activities outside the Capital region or
for meetings related to my parliamentary duties.
• Under its mandate, the OAG could have easily undertaken additional checks to confirm a
number of public events in which the employee participated.
• None of the employee’s claims were “for travel to their workplace in Ottawa,” as stated in one
of the OAG’s findings.
• The Senate finance division occasionally asked for further details and documentation regarding
some of the trips subject to audit, and it always appeared to be satisfied with the responses it
received before it issued reimbursement.
• At no time did the Senate Administration or the OAG provide to me a copy of a policy specifying
the process for claiming employee travel expenses to support one of the OAG’s adverse findings.
• My policy adviser undertook many trips as part of his job without claiming reimbursement,
in order to comply with recognized Senate rules.
• At all times, we carefully monitored my office expenses, which in all respects were below
the limits set by the Senate Administration.
• However, the issue raised by the OAG’s findings—that is, the rules governing employee travel—
seems to me very important and should be dealt with in the administrative overhaul envisaged
for the Senate.

72

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Joseph A. Day
Province: New Brunswick
Appointment date: 4 October 2001
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$19,634

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. The Senator submitted four travel claims that included activities for a youth organization for
which the Senator is a member of the board of directors and honorary legal counsel. For those claims,
the Senator stated that many members of both houses of Parliament attend the youth organization’s
award ceremonies. He also stated that the support by parliamentarians is essential to recognizing
Canadian youth who excel in their communities and serve as role models for their peers. We found
that those trips were primarily in the corporate interest of the youth organization. The total amount
of the four travel claims was $12,812.
2. The Senator claimed travel expenses for a trip, from 27 to 29 April 2011, which included
a political party election event in Toronto and a meeting at the head office of the same youth
organization. The claim included travel to Toronto, accommodations, and per diems. The Senator
stated that the Senate travel policy allowed participation in party activities that were related to the
work of a Senator or the Senate and its proceedings. However, we found that the expenses were
ineligible because the Senator engaged in personal activities and because activities related to an
election are not eligible for reimbursement under the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.
The total amount of this trip was $2,849.
3. We also found that, for three travel claims, the information about the Senator’s itinerary did not
reflect all the locations he visited, some of which were for personal activities.
• For 26 and 27 December 2011, the Senator submitted a travel claim, with the purpose stated
as “Overnight in Montreal (St-Jérôme) & then on to Ottawa.” On the basis of the information
available, including the Senator’s calendar and telecommunications records, we found that
he was on vacation until 3 January, and could have spent only about an hour in Ottawa on
27 December. We determined that this trip was taken primarily for personal activities.
The incremental cost, for mileage, per diems, and accommodations, was $854.
• The Senator submitted a travel claim for the period from 18 to 23 September 2012, with the
purpose stated as “Attended to Senate business in Ottawa.” The Senate was not sitting during
this period. On the basis of the information available, we found that the Senator was in
Plattsburgh, New York on 19 and 20 September. He was in Ottawa for two days. We determined
that certain costs for this trip were primarily for personal activities. The incremental cost,
for mileage, per diems, and accommodations, was $119.

Senators’ Expenses

73

 • The Senator submitted a travel claim for the period from 4 to 8 January 2013, stating that he
worked on Senate business in his Ottawa office on 5 and 6 January. The travel claim also stated
that the Senator “drove personal vehicle from NB to Ottawa on 4 & 5 January […].” However,
on the basis of the information available, we found that the Senator was in the City of Québec
area for personal activities from 27 December 2012 to 3 January 2013, and arrived in Ottawa
after this trip. We determined that certain costs for this trip were primarily for personal
activities. The incremental cost, including mileage, accommodations, parking, and per diems,
was $1,366.
4. The Senator claimed $508 for airfare, taxis, and per diems from Toronto to Ottawa on
29 January 2012 on his return from personal travel to Mexico. As this cost was incurred for a
personal trip, we have determined that the trip was not conducted for parliamentary business.

Findings—other
5. According to the Senate’s policies and guidelines, all hospitality events held in private residences
of Senators are ineligible expenses unless approval is received prior to the event. We found that there
were expenses related to hospitality events held at one of the Senator’s private residences that were
not preapproved. These expenses totalled $1,126.

The Senator’s comments
Each of the matters you find as not parliamentary business was approved by Senate Finance. Please see
my response to your findings:
1. The organization in question is the Canadian Branch of the Duke of Edinburgh
International Award. It is a registered charity and I volunteer all my time and receive no
remuneration. The Governor General is the Honorary Patron. I believe it important that
parliamentarians lead by example to encourage participation by Canadian youth and see
such activities as a crucial part of my parliamentary functions. I regularly speak to high
schools in my province and participate in cadet activities across Canada.
2. I was invited as a parliamentarian to a charity celebratory dinner at the Royal Military
College in Kingston where General Hillier was the keynote speaker. That was by any
definition public business for any parliamentarian and was the purpose of my travel.
To reach Kingston from NB requires flying through Toronto. While in Toronto I met with
the Director of the Duke of Edinburgh Award (See 1. Above) and in my free time I
dropped in to a public political event where I met with and spoke to my parliamentary
leader. To disqualify the entire travel claim because I dropped in to this public political
event in my free time is not reasonable.
3. (a) I needed to travel to Ottawa from NB to pick-up documents and be briefed for an Asia
Pacific Parliamentary Conference that I was attending in Japan on January 6th. I spent
full days in my office on January 3 & 4th. This was the purpose of my travel to Ottawa.
Had I flown from NB the airfare would have been at least $1000. Instead I drove and
claimed $625. I cannot agree that my travel to Ottawa for this parliamentary function
was “personal”.

74

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 (b) The claim on September 18-23 was clearly an administrative error on my arrival dates
only; I arrived on the 20th and worked in the office for 2 days to prepare for the upcoming
National Finance meetings.
(c) I made no claim for the period from December 27 to January 3, 2013. Because of an
administrative office error, mileage from Quebec to Ottawa should have been charged
instead of NB to Ottawa. However, this differential plus one night accommodation does
not amount to $1366. The purpose of the travel to Ottawa was to attend the Asia Pacific
Parliamentary Forum Conference.
4. Since it was less expensive to fly to Ottawa from Toronto than from NB, Senate Finance
pre­approved this travel. I do not understand why the Auditor General would insist on
the more costly option for taxpayers. I was required to be in Ottawa for NATO activities.
5. At no time did Senate Finance question the location of my reception, which I held
annually over the last several years. If the policy had changed I should have been advised
when my claim was being processed.

Senators’ Expenses

75

 Senator Nicole Eaton
Province: Ontario
Appointment date: 2 January 2009
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$3,489

Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$3,489

Findings—travel
We found instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. The Senator served as a director and vice-chair of a foundation and a not-for-profit organization.
During the audit period, we found four trips where the Senator travelled from Ottawa to Toronto
and back the following day, to attend board meetings or events in Toronto. These trips were taken
mid-week, while the Senate was sitting, and were expensed as being parliamentary business.
The Senator stated that the Senate Administration had told her that she was allowed to travel
mid-week to her city of primary residence, which she had declared as Toronto. We determined that
these trips were incurred to pursue the personal interests of the Senator. The incremental cost of these
trips, including airfare and other related charges, less an estimate for accommodations not used
in Ottawa, was $3,489.

The Senator’s comments
• The four trips in question were allowed under Senate rules, as they were part of my
“parliamentary functions” as defined in the Senate Administrative Rules.
• I serve on boards of a foundation and not-for-profit organizations. These include the
St. Michael’s Hospital Foundation, the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, the National
Ballet of Canada and the Gardiner Museum.
• I receive no compensation or personal gain of any kind for so doing.
• Participation in these organizations should not be characterized as “personal interests”. Rather,
it is voluntary community service. It is part of public business, as defined in the Senate rules.
My efforts in support of the charities to which I dedicate my extra time are constructive,
productive and in no way conflict with my work in the Senate of Canada.
• I had to return to Toronto, where I reside, for meetings of these organizations. These meetings
took place in the middle of sitting weeks.
• I decided that, rather than stay home after such meetings, I would come back to Ottawa in order
to be present at committees and sittings of the Senate.
• The Senate has a 64-point travel system. The policy does not require a Senator to do only
one trip per week.

Senators’ Expenses

77

 • These four trips were accepted by Senate Administration.
• I conduct my affairs in the spirit of honour and integrity. I take the responsibility to do so very
seriously. I also operate my office in a spirit of austerity; in the reporting period of this audit
I have returned $74,318 in unspent office budget.
• The OAG raises 2 issues: a) is a Parliamentarian expected to stay in Ottawa all week, or is
travel between the residence/constituency and Ottawa in the middle of a sitting week allowed?
And b) is participation by a Senator in pro-bono activities part of parliamentary functions?
• I understand that these questions will be submitted to the Board of Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration. I think that the issues raised by the OAG, as they are potentially applicable
to all Senators, deserve to be reviewed carefully. This will help the institution to clarify its rules,
and help all Senators determine how they can get involved in community and charitable work.
• I hereby remit the identified sum of $3,489.00.

78

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Leo Housakos
Province: Quebec
Appointment date: 8 January 2009
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$8,319

Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$1,609

Findings—staff travel
We found instances of travel expenses incurred by a staff member and approved by the Senator that
were not for parliamentary business.
1. In 2012, the Senator hosted a St. Valentine’s ball in Montréal, which was organized by a third party.
However, we found that one member of the Senator’s staff travelled to Montréal on six occasions to
assist in preparations for the event. Given that the ball was the Senator’s personal activity, we determined
that travel by the staff member was not for parliamentary business. The cost of this travel was $1,609.

Findings—goods and services
We found instances where expenses for professional services incurred by the Senator were not in
accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, or guidelines.
2. The Senator contracted an individual to provide consulting services for research on Senate reform
and for various bills in the 2011–12 and 2012–13 fiscal years. Most of the work performed by the
contractor related to parliamentary business. However, we found that some of the activities invoiced
by the contractor, including community outreach and media preparation, were not part of the
contract. We estimated that these expenses were $6,710.

The Senator’s comments
Item 1:
• The event was not a “personal activity” but a charity event organized by AHEPA (American
Hellenic Educational Philanthropic Association).
• My work on behalf of this organization is “public business” as defined in the Senate
Administrative Rules and that is why my assistant deemed she could claim the expenses.
• However, after discussion with the auditors, my assistant was informed that there seems to
be a practice in the Senate not to accept such claims when the event is a fundraiser.
• She therefore accepted to reimburse the amount of $1,609.00.

Senators’ Expenses

79

 Item 2:
• The contract was done in accordance with all Senate rules and at all times respected
the allocated budget.
• All of the work done by my contractor was related to my parliamentary functions.
• Community outreach and relations with media outlets are an integral part of a Senator’s
functions and I had every right to use a contractor to help me.
• I decided to hire a contractor rather than a full time employee as policy advisor due to the cost
effectiveness to tax payers.
• The contract number 121126-11-0016 specifically mentions community outreach in
the services to be provided.

80

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Janis G. Johnson
Province: Manitoba
Appointment date: 27 September 1990
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$22,706

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not primarily for
parliamentary business.
1. During the audit period, the Senator frequently travelled between Winnipeg and Vancouver.
The travel claims indicated that the purpose of the trips was for meetings or Senate business.
However, on the basis of available information, we found that the Senator often spent several days in
Vancouver, with only one or two short appointments related to Senate business. Furthermore, we
observed a pattern of those trips coinciding with statutory holidays and occurring over the summer.
• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver, from 16 to 23 April 2011, included Good Friday.
According to the documentation provided by the Senator, she attended two meetings in relation
to her work on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources, and she also had private time while in Vancouver. However, the Senator’s calendar
did not indicate any business meetings during the travel period, but rather indicated personal
activities. The cost of the trip, for airfare and taxis, was $3,007.
• For a trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver on 2 June 2011, and from Vancouver to Ottawa
on 5 June, the Senator’s calendar indicated a one-hour personal event on 3 June. She stated
that there was no Senate business in Vancouver during this trip, because the meeting that she
had scheduled for 4 June was cancelled. The incremental expense claimed by the Senator for
this trip was $3,426.
• For a round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 15 to 19 August 2011, the Senator’s calendar
did not indicate any meetings. The Senator stated that she had two meetings in Vancouver. One
meeting pertained to a project related to her involvement with a health centre in Winnipeg, and
the other to the film industry. However, the Senator did not provide additional information that
would demonstrate that the trip was primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip
was $3,631.
• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 6 to 11 October 2011 included Thanksgiving.
The Senator’s calendar for the travel period showed a three-hour film festival event on 8 October,
and a lunch on 9 October. The Senator stated that this trip was part of both her regional role as a
Senator and her constitutional duty. The Senator did not provide information about the extent of
her participation at the film festival. On the basis of the information available, we determined that
these expenses were not primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $4,350.

Senators’ Expenses

81

 • A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 30 December 2011 to 13 January 2012 took
place when the Senate was not in session. The Senator stated that she travelled to Vancouver for
a meeting. The trip was originally planned to end on 9 January 2012. However, according to the
documentation on file, illness prevented the Senator from returning to Winnipeg on the planned
date. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses were not
primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $3,115.
• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 15 to 23 August 2012 took place when the
Senate was not in session. The Senator stated that she met with an official from a federal
government organization associated with the film industry and with an individual in relation to
her work on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources. However, the Senator did not provide additional information that would demonstrate
that the trip was primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $2,393.
• On 9 November 2012, the Senator travelled from Ottawa to Vancouver, and then to Winnipeg
on 15 November 2012. According to the documentation provided by the Senator, she had
meetings with two individuals—one to discuss a Senate energy report, and another to discuss
fundraising for a film festival, which was in the Senator’s region, and for which she serves as a
member of the board of directors. The incremental cost of airfare, accommodations, and taxis in
Vancouver was $2,784.

The Senator’s comments
I am disappointed by the analysis and conclusions reached by the OAG.
The audit makes no reference to the Senators’ Travel Policy under which these expenses were
submitted. That is what guided me when I incurred them. Shouldn’t that guide the audit?
That Policy explicitly recognizes that Senators can combine parliamentary work with private business
and personal travel with the only proviso that a Senator should not seek reimbursement for any
expenses that relate to personal matters - which I never did.
The OAG also observes that some of my trips occurred around holiday periods. The Policy also
permits this. Given our sitting schedule, much of the business done by Senators outside of Ottawa
can only occur during holiday breaks.
Because I attended to personal matters on these trips or they occurred around holidays should not
confound the fact that their primary purpose was always for parliamentary business. The genesis for
each trip was parliamentary business and any personal business or holidays were only considered and
added after that. In other words, my personal interests did not drive the agenda, parliamentary
business did.
I have been a Senator for almost 25 years and I have always been mindful of how I use public funds.
I have never sought to have the public pay for my personal travel. In that regard, it should be noted
that during the period under review I used only 53 travel points out of an allowable 128 and all of
my expenses, including travel, came in under budget.
I also note that the OAG has provided only a brief summary in regard to the challenged trips and
has stated that I did not provide “any” or “sufficient” additional information. That is inaccurate.
For each of the trips, I provided the names of the individuals with whom I met and their contact
information along with background emails and other documents confirming the meetings. I also

82

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 provided hundreds of pages of supporting information to demonstrate the purpose of these meetings
and how they relate to parliamentary business. The OAG makes no mention of any of this.
In a subsequent discussion I had with the OAG, they conceded that indeed on each of these trips
there were meetings which involved parliamentary business (even though the OAG summaries
leave the contrary impression). They just ‘felt’ that the purpose of the trips was more personal
than parliamentary.
In saying this, the OAG has applied a factor not even included in the Senator’s Travel Policy.
The Policy has always permitted the combination of personal business with parliamentary business;
it does not provide for and the approval process has never included a subjective determination as to
which was predominant. Frankly, such a provision would be arbitrary and unworkable unless it
included clear criteria so we could know in advance how it will be applied. In the absence of those
criteria, the OAG has reached a subjective conclusion, applying criteria not part of the Policy and
contrary to the true facts.

Senators’ Expenses

83

 Senator Noël A. Kinsella (resigned)
Province: New Brunswick
Appointment date: 12 September 1990
Resignation date: 27 November 2014
Senator Kinsella was Speaker of the Senate from 8 February 2006 to 26 November 2014. We found
that the expense claims showed little distinction between the expenses incurred as Senator and those
incurred as Speaker of the Senate. All hospitality charges had been made to the Speaker’s budget. We
have separated the remaining expenses on the basis of available information and the budgets to which
these expenses had been charged.

Results as Senator
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)
Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$7,705
$262

Findings—travel
We found two instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. The Senator and his spouse took a three-day return trip from Ottawa to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,
where they attended the funeral of his sister’s husband. According to the Senator, the deceased had
been a leader in the Italian-Canadian community and had been important to New Brunswick, as he
had played for the University of New Brunswick football team. He also stated that the deceased had
attended several Speeches from the Throne. The Senator said that he attended the funeral in his role
as a Senator and as the Speaker of the Senate, and that the decision to attend and speak at the funeral
was not influenced by his personal relationship with the deceased. He also said that he would not
have attended the funeral if he were not Speaker of the Senate. However, we determined that the trip
was for personal activities. The cost of the trip for the Senator and his spouse was $5,663.
2. The Senator claimed for airfare from Toronto to Ottawa, on his return from personal travel to
Orlando, Florida. Though the Senator travelled regularly to Florida during the audit period, this was
the only occurrence charged to the Senate. We have determined that this expense was incurred for
personal activities, in the amount of $636.

Findings—other
We found instances of costs for services incurred by the Senator that were not for parliamentary business.
3. The Senator incurred $1,406 in relation to expenditures for telecommunications charges incurred
during periods of personal travel and for per diems claimed by the Senator and his spouse while not on
travel status. The Senator repaid $262 for personal telecommunications expenses.

Senators’ Expenses

85

 Results as Speaker of the Senate (Former Speaker Kinsella)
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$1,681

Findings—travel
We found one instance of travel expenses claimed by the Speaker that were not for parliamentary
business.
4. An international parliamentary exchange trip was planned for the Speaker, his spouse,
and one member of the Speaker’s staff. The joint Senate–House of Commons International and
Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate (IIA) informed us that one leg of the trip was scheduled as a
working visit, rather than a more formal official visit. This was because both the main constitutional
bodies in that country were on a two-week break at the time, and unable to accommodate an official
visit on the dates suggested by the Speaker’s office. An official visit was rescheduled to that country
later in the year. The IIA said that, before booking tickets for this leg of the trip, it had made attempts to
confirm meetings for the Speaker. At the time of booking the airline tickets, no meetings with officials
in the host country had been confirmed. By the date of departure, one meeting had been confirmed
for the Speaker, but there were hopes that other tentatively scheduled meetings would be confirmed.
Consequently, the Speaker, his spouse, and the staff member spent two nights in the destination city,
with a one-hour meeting constituting the parliamentary business during the visit. We determined that
the stay in that destination was essentially personal, given that only a small amount of parliamentary
business was conducted. In deciding that the leg of the trip should be maintained, it was determined
that there would be little or no cost savings in changing the airline tickets. However, we estimated that
the incremental cost of the trip to the destination city, including flight, accommodations, and per
diems, was $1,681. In estimating this amount, we deducted the cost of change fees.

The former Speaker’s comments
I wish to acknowledge the important audit work completed by the Auditor General’s team at the
request of the Senate of Canada. With reference to some errors identified in the examination of
the Speaker’s Office:
a) The matter of the attendance at a funeral for a prominent Canadian in Sault Ste. Marie,
the Rules of the Senate concerning a Senator attending a funeral were followed and approved
by Senate Administration;
b) Airfare from Toronto to Ottawa was deemed to be travel for Senate Business by Senate
Administration;
c) All telecommunication expenses were in accordance with the telecommunication policy
of the Senate of Canada; and
d) As is the usual practice by IIA the airline tickets were purchased in advance of a final program
to ensure best available prices. The professional advice provided to the Speaker’s office was to
continue with the destination city portion of the trip so not to incur substantial penalties.

86

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas
Province: New Brunswick
Appointment date: 21 September 2005
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$75,227

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. The Senator’s declared primary residence was in the Tobique First Nation in New Brunswick, and
her declared secondary residence was in Ottawa, throughout the audit period. The primary residence
is approximately 200 kilometres from the nearest major airport, in Fredericton. Given this distance,
we considered a one-night stay in Fredericton to be a reasonable practice.
2. Over the audit period, we found 40 instances when the length of the stay in Fredericton was
greater than one night, including stays of up to 9 consecutive nights. The Senator stated that this
generally occurred because she held meetings with members of First Nations in Fredericton on issues
related to parliamentary business, or because weather delayed driving to her primary residence.
The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to
account for that use. We received no additional documentation for the purpose of these stays or the
events that took place during them. On the basis of the information available, we determined that
these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The incremental travel cost
associated with stays in excess of one night, including accommodations, mileage, and per diems,
was $21,644.
3. We found that, on five occasions, the Senator travelled to Halifax. The Senator stated that the
purpose of one of these trips was to discuss an education study with First Nations women. We also
found that the Senator and her designated traveller took trips to western Canada. On the basis of the
information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary
business. The cost claimed for the trips, including airfare, accommodations, and per diems for the
Senator and her designated traveller, was $53,583.

The Senator’s comments
I have a representative role in the Senate with an obligation to support my region and its minorities.
As the only Aboriginal Senator in New Brunswick, I have many meetings in Fredericton and travel to
communities throughout the province as well as the Atlantic region to discuss issues that pertain to
my work in the Senate.
I am permitted by Senate Finance to stay overnight at a hotel in Fredericton when travelling to and
from Ottawa because of the long distance to the Tobique First Nation, a two-and-a-half hour drive
from Fredericton. Often inclement weather does not permit safe travel home and at times, because
of fatigue, it is safer to overnight in Fredericton.

Senators’ Expenses

87

 I am well known in my community and surrounding communities in New Brunswick, and
individuals feel free to approach me directly when I am in Fredericton. Many meetings occur on such
an informal basis in the provincial capital. Obviously a great many individuals find it easier to meet
with me in Fredericton than to travel to the Tobique First Nation. Consequently, at times I will extend
my stay in Fredericton in order to accommodate them. This would include meetings with members of
Band Councils, Elders, Aboriginal women concerning issues of violence, individuals with housing
issues, and with Aboriginal students.
If I remained exclusively at the Tobique First Nation as the Auditor General apparently wishes,
I would miss important opportunities to represent my community effectively.
My trips to Halifax were also to discuss Aboriginal issues with various Aboriginal leaders in my
region of the country. Provincial and national borders are not viewed in the same way in traditional
Aboriginal culture as they are in Ottawa. My people and their ties with one another and with me,
are not defined or limited by borders.
With respect to Vancouver, I traveled there to attend the three-day 2013 Indigenous Women in
Leadership Gathering. In fact, I was given specific approval by Senate Finance to attend this gathering.
I also travelled to Vancouver to attend the 19th Annual National Aboriginal Achievements Awards. In
both cases, these high profile gatherings were important for me to attend as an Aboriginal Senator in
order to better represent my people.
As one of only two Aboriginal women serving in the Senate, and the only one from Eastern Canada,
I believe I have an important representative role to play for my people throughout the country, and
I have tried to carry out that responsibility effectively and conscientiously.

88

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Elaine McCoy
Province: Alberta
Appointment date: 24 March 2005
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$10,298

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. From 4 to 9 May 2011, the Senator travelled from her primary residence in Calgary to Edmonton.
While the Senator attended several meetings related to her Senate duties during the week, there
was no evidence of parliamentary business for the two weekend days of the trip. The Senate
Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account
for that use. We received no additional documentation for the expenses incurred on the two weekend
days or the events that took place during that time. On the basis of the information available, we
determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The incremental
cost, including accommodations, car rental, and per diems for the Senator, was $438.
2. On 23 May 2011, the Senator again travelled from Calgary to Edmonton, and stopped in Toronto
en route to Ottawa.
• We found that the only event for parliamentary business that took place in Edmonton was a
conference call. While the Senator stated that it was probable that other meetings had been
arranged and subsequently cancelled, there was no evidence to show that the trip was taken for
parliamentary business. On the basis of available information, we determined that the principal
reason for stopping in Edmonton was for personal activities. The incremental cost for the flight,
accommodations, per diems, and taxis was $997.
• For the Toronto portion of the trip, we again found that there was only one day of meetings for
parliamentary business, and that the other days did not contain any parliamentary business.
The incremental cost of this portion of the trip, including accommodations, per diems, and
taxis, was $659.
3. On 21 March 2013, the Senator travelled from Ottawa to Calgary to attend a board meeting of an
Alberta-based environmental not-for-profit organization, for which she received fees for participation
as a board member. This trip took place at the end of the week’s Senate sitting, and the Senator
returned to Ottawa the next day. We determined that this trip was incurred to pursue the private
business interests of the Senator. The cost of the trip was $5,155.

Senators’ Expenses

89

 Findings—staff travel
We found an instance of travel expenses incurred by staff members and approved by the Senator
that were not for parliamentary business.
4. On 12 December 2011, the Senator requested permission from the Internal Economy Committee
to allow her to claim hospitality costs to host a Christmas open house at her home in Calgary on
18 December 2011. A member of the Senator’s staff travelled from Ottawa to Calgary on 16 December,
and the Senator stated that the staff member attended the event to assist the Senator with networking.
The Senator also stated that she received notification on 19 December 2011 from the chair of the
Internal Economy Committee that her request was not approved. Given that the Committee has the
exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current, or proposed use of funds is proper, and
it did not approve the Senator’s request for this event, we determined that the staff member’s travel was
not for parliamentary business. The cost of the travel claims, including airfare, taxis, accommodations,
and per diems, was $2,089.

Findings—other
We found that the Senator and her staff claimed expenses for the use of taxis for travel between their
residences and the Senator’s office, which is not allowed by Senate policy.
5. According to the Senate’s policies and guidelines, it is the responsibility of Senators and their
staff to provide their own transportation to or from their residences in the National Capital Region.
We found that the Senator and her staff used taxis for travel between their residences and the Senator’s
office, which is not allowed by Senate policy. This taxi use totalled $960 over the audit period.

The Senator’s comments
Thank you for providing me with your findings and conclusions. I, along with my staff, would like to
thank the members of your audit team assigned to my files: [they] were good people to work with and
I thank them for their time and talent. It was clear they took pride in their work and we appreciated it.
That being said, while I do not doubt the accuracy of the dates and figures you report, I disagree
with many of your conclusions and findings, and the basis on which, as described to me, you arrived
at them.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that your findings will assist with the Senate’s ongoing efforts to
modernize, enhance and improve our processes. I am a great believer in the Senate of Canada and its
good works. I fully support the broad principle of transparency within this institution, just as I have
always supported transparency throughout my long career. In the interest of moving forward, we will
of course accept whatever Internal Economy decides when the matter is referred back to it.

90

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Terry M. Mercer
Province: Nova Scotia
Appointment date: 7 November 2003
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$29,338

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. We found four trips where the Senator’s spouse travelled from Halifax to Ottawa when the
Senator was not in Ottawa at any time during the trip. The Senator stated that the purpose of those
trips was for his spouse to attend to responsibilities related to their Ottawa residence. The Senate’s
rules, policies, and guidelines recognize that a Senator’s parliamentary functions can result in
frequent and lengthy periods of separation from family, and have provided for family-reunion travel as
an important contributor to the health and well-being of Senators and their families. Given that the
Senator was not in Ottawa, we determined that the spouse’s trips to Ottawa on these occasions did
not respect the objective of family reunification. The cost of these trips, for transportation expenses,
was $10,485.
2. We found that the Senator travelled on separate occasions to Saskatoon, Montreal, and Vancouver
to attend events or meetings of an association of certified fundraising executives, of which he was a
board member. The Senator stated that one of the association’s goals was to influence public policy
affecting its members. On the basis of a review of the Senator’s calendar and other available
information, we determined that these trips were incurred to pursue the interests of the association.
The cost related to these trips, including transportation, accommodations, and per diems,
was $15,401.
3. We found that the Senator travelled to Toronto on 15 December 2011 to attend the 100th anniversary
of a curling club, of which the Senator was a member when he lived in Toronto. The Senator stated
that the purpose of the trip was Senate-related business. On the basis of the information available, we
determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip,
for transportation, accommodations, and per diems, was $3,452.

The Senator’s comments
I strongly object to these findings and do not agree with the rationale the Auditor General has
used to identify them. The determinations presented in this report are based on the Auditor
General’s interpretation of the rules and guidelines of the Senate in place at the time of the audit.
My interpretation of these rules disagrees with the Auditor General’s determinations as all actions
were in accordance with the rules and properly claimed as agreed upon and concurred with
by Senate Administration.

Senators’ Expenses

91

 From the time of my appointment to the Senate, I have maintained a primary residence in my
province and a secondary residence in Ottawa which requires travel. These actions were in accordance
with Senate rules and guidelines in place at the time.
All Senators have interests that they bring with them to the Senate. These past experiences give
the Senate its unique ability to act on a variety of issues and represent a wide variety of stakeholders
which involves meetings in Ottawa, my home province, and indeed across Canada and includes
legislative business being carried out in the Senate by me. These actions were in accordance with
Senate rules and guidelines in place at the time.
My business in the Senate involves maintaining connections with stakeholders, indeed all Canadians.
Much of this business occurs in my home province but sometimes occurs in other areas of the
country. Any travel that directly involves my interests in the Senate was in accordance with Senate
rules and guidelines in place at the time.
In the spirit of better transparency and more accountability, the Senate has taken major steps over
the past number of years to address issues. We have enhanced rules for many things, including travel,
by working together as Senators with the administrative structures of the Senate. I followed the rules
then and continue to follow them, as enhanced, now. At any time during my tenure as a Senator,
when changes have been made to Senate policies and guidelines, I adhered to those changes. It was
also never indicated to me that any actions on my part were outside of the rules that were in place
at any time. I do not understand how the Auditor General believes otherwise.

92

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Pana Merchant
Province: Saskatchewan
Appointment date: 12 December 2002
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)
Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$5,500
$511

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business or were not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.
1. On four separate occasions, the Senator and her spouse extended their stays or stopped over
in Montréal, Toronto, or Calgary. According to the expense claims, the purpose of those trips was
varied parliamentary business. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses
Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation for
the expenses incurred during those extended stays or the events that took place during them. On the
basis of the information available, we determined that those expenses had not been incurred for
parliamentary business. The incremental cost, including airfare, accommodations, and per diems,
was $3,169.
2. According to the Senate’s policies and guidelines, all expenses related to an international trip
must be approved by the sponsoring Senate committee. We found that the Senator claimed expenses
for part of an international trip that were not previously approved according to the Senate’s rules,
policies, and guidelines. The ineligible amount was $511, which the Senator repaid.
3. For one trip by the Senator’s spouse, we found that the spouse travelled with the Senator to Ottawa.
When the Senator returned home, the spouse went to Vancouver instead. The Senator stated that she
was not required to provide further details for these types of claims because they were permitted under
the guidelines. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is
responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation for the incremental
expenses incurred during this trip or the events that took place during that time. On the basis of the
information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary
business. The incremental cost for this portion of the trip was $1,820.

The Senator’s comments
Several difficulties exist with this report:
• All information provided on behalf of the Senator was correct and remains unquestioned
by OAG.
• Two different protocols for senators’ expenses existed during the period reviewed but OAG dealt
with expenses as though there were no changes in the Guidelines/Rules.

Senators’ Expenses

93

 • Pursuant to “the Other Travel 12 Point Category” travel within Canada does not require a
parliamentary purpose at both ends of travel. The appropriate parliamentary purpose of this
travel was attending sittings of the Senate and travel to/from Ottawa. OAG is wrongfully
inserting an additional stipulation requiring a Senate purpose in both Ottawa and the city
of departure/return.
• Disputed expenses are:
The Senator spoke at an April 4/11 conference in Montreal organized by Israeli and Greek diplomats.
Following arrangements made by Senator Housakos and former MP Eleni Bakopanos, she attended
official functions and related events prior to the formal opening of the conference. As confirmed by
documentation provided to OAG, her activities over three days included a radio interview with
CFMB; attending a community event; and attending events with 2 ambassadors, 3 Consuls General,
and a government minister from Greece.
The Senator travelled Ottawa/Toronto on April 14/11 for a reception/dinner with the Ambassador of
Greece; the Metropolitan of the Greek Church; the Greek Education Minister; Consuls General, MPs,
MPPs, and City Councillors.
The Senator travelled Toronto/Ottawa on April 15/11 for commemoration of the 60th anniversary of
the Battle of Kapyong at the War Memorial.
OAG suggests an incremental cost of return travel Ottawa/Calgary on August 30/11 as compared to
return to Regina. There was no pattern of travel to Calgary or Toronto. OAG assessed incremental cost
should be repaid notwithstanding meetings with the past president of Daughters of Penelope regarding
Greek schools, immigration issues, 2012 Global Summit of Women, and advice on planning of
banquet to honour Prime Minister Harper by AHEPA / Daughters of Penelope, as confirmed in letters
from them.
May 1/12 related to a Toronto one-night stopover to promote the 2012 Global Women’s Summit—
where the Senator led the Canadian delegation.
November 2/12 travel was approved by Senate Finance as governed by “the Other Travel 12 Point
Category”. Even if OAG incorrectly suggests cost recovery, OAG makes a second mistake. Different
from other disputed claims where recovery of incremental cost is sought, OAG now inconsistently
suggests full recovery when the incremental cost is known and is 70% less.
OAG wrongly reports overpayment of $715.12 pursuant to the 2014 review by Mme. Proulx,
Director of Senate Finance, ignoring that in 2015, Senate Finance reassessed the claim again
and repaid $229.39 to the Senator.
Senate Finance with no interference by the Senator not only approved the above travel claims
for 2011/12, but in 2014 reaffirmed its view that appropriate travel claims were made other than
adjustments totalling $485.73.
The above report is not a difference of interpretation between Senate Finance and OAG but rather that
OAG rendered its view based on Guidelines/Rules as it believes they should have been ignoring what
the Guidelines/Rules actually stated.

94

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Lowell Murray (retired)
Province: Ontario
Appointment date: 13 September 1979
Retirement date: 26 September 2011
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$16,300

Findings—travel
We found instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. During the audit period, the Senator travelled to Nova Scotia on six occasions, sometimes
with his spouse. According to the travel claims, the stated purpose of the travel was parliamentary
business, but the actual final destination was not provided. The Senator stated that, for the most part,
he could not connect any one travel claim involving the Atlantic provinces to a specific legislative or
policy initiative in the Senate. He attributed this travel to an interest in the region he held throughout
his political life, including during his time serving in the Senate. He also stated that, while in the
region, he stayed at his house in Nova Scotia whenever possible, especially during periods of
parliamentary dissolution, prorogation, or extended recess. When we reviewed the Senator’s expense
claims for the 2010–11 fiscal year, we noted that this travel pattern also occurred in that period.
The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible
to account for that use. Though the Senator was travelling to a personal residence in Cape Breton,
we received no additional documentation or explanations for the purpose of these trips or the events
that took place during them. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these
expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of these trips in the audit period
was $15,324.
2. On 21 September 2011, the Senator took a return trip from Ottawa to Toronto. The Senator
stated that this travel claim was filed in error. The cost was $976.

The former Senator’s comments
The Auditor-General’s “Findings-Travel” summarizes the responses I gave in January 2015 to
questions from the audit team as to 17 expense claims in fiscal year 2011–12. I gave these answers
truthfully and to the best of my knowledge and recollection. The issue arising from the audit team’s
analysis of six of these claims is whether each travel claim must relate to a specific event or to a
parliamentary debate or initiative within the timeframe of the audit. With respect, a body of knowledge
on public policy issues cannot be built up in this way, and so I have a different understanding and
experience based on 32 years in the Senate. Long established procedures did not require that a paper
trail be kept of senators’ activities while on travel status; such a rule would have presented other
problems, to the extent that confidential discussions or sensitive issues were involved.

Senators’ Expenses

95

 Anyway, the records of the Senate and of its committees from 1979 to my departure in 2011 contain
my repeated interventions on all major issues affecting Atlantic Canada, as well as of eastern Ontario
which I represented. I had considerable background on these issues long before coming to the Senate
and followed them constantly while there. It should not be assumed that Senators are on holidays
when the Senate or its committees are in recess.
I note that the Auditor-General has referred the items in question to the internal economy
committee, and I would welcome the opportunity in due course to place my views on the record in
that forum. As I had been several years in retirement, I did not have the opportunity to participate
in the debate or to attend the Auditor-General’s briefings of senators in 2013.

96

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Dennis Glen Patterson
Territory: Nunavut
Appointment date: 27 August 2009
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)
Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$22,985
$6,200

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. From 27 to 31 October 2011, the Senator took a round trip from Ottawa to Vancouver for a
fundraising event, and claimed travel expenses totalling $5,205. The Senator repaid this amount
in full.
2. We found travel expenses totalling $995 for one trip in May 2011 to visit Pangnirtung, Nunavut.
During the audit, the Senator repaid the amount of the claim, as the Senator stated that he believed
that the expense did not meet the criteria for parliamentary business.

Findings—goods and services
We found several instances of goods and services claimed by the Senator that were not in accordance
with the Senate’s rules, policies, or guidelines.
3. For each of the two years of the audit, the Senator awarded a contract to one of his full-time staff
members to provide media monitoring services. In our view, the services were part of the employee’s
regular duties. The contract was cancelled in 2014. The total expense for the two fiscal years
was $3,023.
4. We found that the Senator’s office paid for legal services that were provided in the 2011–12 fiscal
year, but that the Senator certified were performed in the 2012–13 fiscal year.
• Records we obtained from the law firm confirmed that the legal services had been provided
by the end of October 2011. The Senator requested that the law firm split an invoice that
the firm had submitted in 2011–12 into two invoices, so that part of the amount owing could
be paid in 2011–12 and the balance in 2012–13.
• We found that the same invoice number appeared on the invoices that were provided in
both fiscal years. The first version of the invoice stated “for professional services rendered to
March 30, 2012”; the second version stated “for professional services,” without any reference
to when the services were performed.

Senators’ Expenses

97

 • The Senator stated that there had not been enough funds remaining in his 2011–12 research
and office budget to pay the invoice. He also stated that, after exploring other avenues for
payment within the Senate and being advised that no other budgets existed to pay the legal bills,
he asked the law firm to reissue invoices so that a portion of the legal services could be paid in
the following fiscal year. Had the amount been correctly charged to the 2011–12 fiscal year,
$13,762 would have been paid directly by the Senator, or the Senator would have needed to
obtain the approval of the Internal Economy Committee.

The Senator’s comments
ITEM 1
• Only as a result of the Auditor General’s work did I become informed that there seems to be a
Senate practice not to accept claims regarding fundraisers for charities. I therefore reimbursed
the amount of the claim.
ITEM 2
• As stated, the amount was reimbursed even before the audit.
ITEM 3
• The staff member in question is my Policy Advisor. I also contracted the services of his already
established media monitoring firm; this service was provided independently of his work as an
employee and always outside this office, on his own time.
• It was never explained to me that an individual could not be both a contractor and an employee;
this was done in good faith and was corrected as soon as it was pointed out to me.
ITEM 4
• I was advised by the Law Clerk of the Senate to ask about the unique situation of a Senator
representing the territory of Nunavut under the Constitution of Canada. He suggested an expert
in constitutional law, who was also licensed to practice law in Nunavut.
• I thought, initially, that all the work could be done within the FY 2011-12, and within my
limited office research budget.
• However, I soon was advised that the work required would be greater than originally anticipated,
due to the complexity of the question.
• I asked Senate Administration officials (including the Clerk of the Senate and the Director of
Finance) for advice on how to proceed to cover the amount that would be over budget.
• Unfortunately, no one in Senate Administration, including the Clerk of the Senate, informed
me that I could have applied to the Board of Internal Economy to cover those legal fees under
the Senate Legal Assistance and Indemnification Policy. That policy provides indemnification
for outside legal advice for a Senator “...where the matter relates to the parliamentary functions
of the Senator [and] the particulars of the case are such that it is otherwise appropriate for the
Senate to assist,” which were clearly at stake in this constitutional matter.

98

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 • The additional work requested of the law firm was to be included with the second invoice issued
in FY 2012–13. The law firm had amended the invoice to remove “for professional services
rendered to March 30, 2012” because I was still waiting for a legal opinion in the new fiscal year.
Unfortunately, this final deliverable was not received due to the lead lawyer on the file leaving
the firm to set up his own law firm.
• It only became clear during the audit that I should not have had to use my research budget
to pay for legal advice on a major constitutional issue. From the first time I sought advice from
the Law Clerk of the Senate on this Constitutional matter and from the first time I realized that
the legal work would be much more than anticipated, I informed and relied on the Senate
Administration for their advice on how to proceed.

Senators’ Expenses

99

 Senator Robert W. Peterson (retired)
Province: Saskatchewan
Appointment date: 24 March 2005
Retirement date: 19 October 2012
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$11,493

Findings—travel
We found one instance of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. On 17 December 2011, the Senator returned home to Regina after a Senate sitting. The Senator
and his spouse then took a trip, beginning with a flight on 22 December from Regina to Ottawa, then
to Toronto on 24 December, and finally back to Regina on 27 December. The Senator stated that the
purpose of the Ottawa stop was to attend to year-end business and to allow him and his spouse to
take his staff out for a year-end celebration. The Senator also stated that he subsequently stopped in
Toronto to see his family. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate
resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation for the
purpose of this trip. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had
not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip, including airfare, parking, taxis,
and per diems, was $11,493.

The former Senator’s comments
On Friday Dec. 16th 2011, the Senate adjourned until Jan. 31st 2012. I returned to Ottawa on Thurs.,
Dec. 22nd in order to give direction to my staff and to put my papers and files in order, knowing that
I was going to be away from my Parliament Hill office for more than a month.
Although my main purpose in coming to Ottawa on that trip was to prepare my office for the winter
parliamentary recess, I also took the opportunity on Fri. Dec. 23rd to host an appreciation dinner
and entertainment at the NAC [National Arts Centre] for my staff and their spouses to recognize their
contributions to the efficient operation of my office throughout the year. In my experience, employee
appreciation and employee recognition events are common practice. I also want to make clear that all
costs were paid by me personally and not charged to my hospitality budget.
In response to my stopover in Toronto I would point out that at that time of year there are no direct
flights to Regina from Ottawa. My assistant advised me there would be no additional charges for
airline tickets by staying over a few days in Toronto. All expenses incurred in Toronto were paid by
me personally.

Senators’ Expenses

101

 Senator Donald Neil Plett
Province: Manitoba
Appointment date: 27 August 2009
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$4,095

Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$2,975

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. On 10 July 2011, the Senator flew from Calgary to Ottawa. He had been in Calgary for personal
activities. The Senator stated that he returned to Ottawa to conduct Senate-related office work.
Airfare from Calgary to Ottawa is more expensive than from his primary residence in Winnipeg.
The incremental cost of the airfare was $715.
2. On 4 to 5 December 2011, the Senator and his spouse travelled from Landmark, Manitoba to
Montréal, before travelling to Ottawa. The Senator stated that he had a meeting in Montréal, but he
was unable to provide us with any information about the meeting. The Senate Administrative Rules
state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received
no additional documentation or explanations for the purpose of this trip or the events that took place
during that time. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had
not been incurred for parliamentary business. The incremental cost of the trip to Montréal, including
accommodations and taxi, was $222.
3. On 5 February 2012, the Senator travelled by air from Landmark to Montréal, and then to
Ottawa by train later that afternoon. The Senator stated that he had dined with a Senate colleague
in Montréal. The Senator’s calendar contained an entry for a professional hockey game early that
afternoon. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is
responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation or explanations for
the purpose of this trip or the events that took place during that time. On the basis of the information
available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business.
As there was no incremental cost in airfare, and no cost for the train, the only incremental costs were
for the per diem and taxis in Montréal, for a total of $183.
4. From 8 to 10 June 2012, the Senator travelled round-trip from Ottawa to Montréal. The Senator’s
calendar indicated personal activities on 8 and 10 June. The Senator stated that this claim was made
in error. The cost of the trip, including taxis and per diems, was $262.
5. From 14 to 16 December 2012, after the Senate had adjourned for the holidays, the Senator
travelled from Ottawa to St. John’s, and then to Winnipeg. The Senator stated that he visited family
in St. John’s instead of flying to see his family in Winnipeg. We determined that the purpose of this
trip was for personal activities. The incremental cost of the trip, including airfare, hotel, and per
diems, less the cost of airfare for the Senator travelling home to Winnipeg, was $2,713.

Senators’ Expenses

103

 The Senator’s comments
ITEM 1
• On July 10, 2011, at the request of the Minister of Justice, I flew to Ottawa to meet with the
Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada.
• Having a Minister of the Crown ask me to come to Ottawa clearly makes this official business
as defined in the Senate Administrative Rules.
• I was in Calgary when the meeting was set up so I flew directly from there to Ottawa.
• Under the Senators’ Travel Guidelines (June 16, 2009 to June 4, 2012), there were in fact no
rules restricting where I flew from to travel to the National Capital Region.
• Furthermore, due to the time constraints, I did not have time to fly back to Winnipeg and then
go to Ottawa. Thus, there were no incremental costs as the full cost of travel was reimbursable
under the Guidelines.
ITEM 2
• On December 4, 2011, I was in Montreal for Senate related business, for meetings
with stakeholders.
• On December 5, 2011 I was in Ottawa where I worked in in my office and attended a National
Security and Defence pre-meeting and committee meeting. Thus, there were no incremental
costs and the full cost of travel was reimbursable under the Senators’ Travel Guidelines.
ITEM 3
• On February 5, 2012 I traveled from my residence to Ottawa.
• I stopped in Montreal on the way to meet with a Senate colleague to discuss Senate legislation.
I also had some personal time.
• Section 2.4.5 of the Senators’ Travel Policy, enacted in June 2012, clearly states that Senators
can combine Senate-related travel with personal travel.
• At the time of this trip, there was no rule prohibiting it, therefore, there were no incremental
costs and the full cost of travel was reimbursable under the Senators’ Travel Guidelines.
ITEM 4
• This claim was made in error and the amount has been fully refunded.
ITEM 5
• I agree with your assessment of this expense claim. The original cost of the trip was $4,481.81.
The full amount was claimed in error; only $1,768.81 should have been expensed to the Senate,
so I have refunded the difference of $2,713.

104

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Vivienne Poy (resigned)
Province: Ontario
Appointment date: 17 September 1998
Resignation date: 17 September 2012
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$15,317

Findings—travel
We found instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. From 14 to 16 July 2011, the Senator and her designated traveller travelled from their primary
residence in Toronto to Vancouver, to attend an event for a charitable organization of which the Senator
was a board member. The Senator stated that, as a board member, which was a voluntary position, she
motivated Canadians to volunteer to help an initiative that helped to prevent blindness worldwide and
was of great interest to Asian Canadians. Nevertheless, we determined that this trip was for personal
activities rather than parliamentary business, as the trip was related to the Senator’s role as a board
member. The cost for the trip, including airfare, taxis, and accommodations, was $13,402.
2. The Senator attended the opening of an art exhibit in Montréal in September 2012 and claimed
expenses for her taxis and accommodations. However, the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines
stated that expenses to attend art exhibits were ineligible. The amount of the trip was $354.
3. We also found other amounts related to travel totalling $964, claimed by the Senator, that were
not allowed by Senate policy, were personal in nature, or for which we were unable to determine
whether they were related to parliamentary business.

Findings—staff travel
We found an instance of travel expenses incurred by a staff member and approved by the Senator that
were not for parliamentary business.
4. A member of the Senator’s staff attended the launch in Toronto for a book that the Senator
co-edited. The staff member travelled round-trip from Ottawa to Toronto. We found that the Senate
Administration had rejected a similar claim by the Senator for reimbursement of her expenses to
attend the same book launch. The staff member incurred expenses for her train fare, one night’s
accommodation, and per diems. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these
expenses were for the Senator’s personal interests. The amount for the trip was $597.

Senators’ Expenses

105

 The former Senator did not provide comments for publication
Information, representations, and submissions provided by the former Senator were considered
throughout this audit and are reflected in our findings and conclusions. The former Senator did
not confirm the facts in this report or provide a response in time to meet our publication deadline.

106

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Nancy Greene Raine
Province: British Columbia
Appointment date: 2 January 2009
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$2,800

Amount repaid after 5 June 2013 and before 7 May 2015

$2,386

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. On two occasions, the Senator stopped in Toronto as part of her travel to Ottawa. These stopovers
in Toronto were made so that she could attend ski shows. The Senator reviewed her claims in 2013,
realized that she should not have claimed these expenses, and has made a full repayment for them.
The incremental cost of the two stopovers was $1,688.
2. During the audit period, the Senator was the chair of a community board in British Columbia.
In March 2013, the Senator travelled from Ottawa to Calgary, using a flight pass. However, she
incurred additional flight and mileage costs to attend a board meeting in Kelowna, British Columbia.
In reviewing her claims in 2013, the Senator realized that she should not have claimed these
expenses, and made a full repayment for them. The incremental travel cost was $353.
3. In November 2012, the Senator travelled from her primary residence in Kamloops, British
Columbia, to Ottawa. On her return, the Senator stopped overnight in Vancouver before leaving
for a holiday with her spouse. We determined that the overnight stay was for personal interests.
The incremental cost of the overnight stay in Vancouver was $211.
4. On 25 November 2011, the Senator attended the 50th wedding anniversary of another Senator,
near Vancouver. The Senator stated that she had been invited to attend as a Senate colleague, because
the Senator whose anniversary was being celebrated was her mentor in the Senate. We determined
that this claim was primarily for personal activities, rather than parliamentary business. The
incremental travel cost was $203.

Findings—other
5. In February 2012, the Senator attended an Aboriginal awards event. She submitted an office
expense claim that included the cost of the ticket for $345. Because Senate policy stipulated that
the Senate would not fund admission tickets or expenditures that were contributions to charity
or fundraising events, we determined that the ticket was an ineligible expense. The Senator has repaid
the entire amount.

Senators’ Expenses

107

 The Senator’s comments
ITEM 1
• This was a good faith, administrative error. I discovered these errors on my own and repaid
the funds prior to meeting with the auditors.
ITEM 2
• This was a good faith, administrative error. I discovered this error on my own and the funds
were repaid prior to meeting with the auditors.
ITEM 3
• When the Senate sits late on Thursdays, I miss the last flight to Kamloops from Vancouver,
so must stay overnight at the airport hotel in Vancouver. I then take the first available flight
on to Kamloops the next morning. The only difference in this situation was that I could not
fly to Kamloops the next morning since I was taking another trip which was booked to leave
from Vancouver.
ITEM 4
• I attended the event for a British Columbia Senator because it was organized as a tribute to his
lengthy and distinguished career of public service. Other guests included federal, provincial and
municipal representatives. The Senator who was being honoured is a well-known public figure
in British Columbia, my home province.
ITEM 5
• I was invited by the organizers of this event in my capacity as a Senator and a Member of the
Aboriginal Affairs Committee. Expensing the ticket was in error as it was a charitable event.
The funds have been repaid.

108

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator Nick G. Sibbeston
Territory: Northwest Territories
Appointment date: 2 September 1999
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$50,102

Findings—travel
We found several instances where travel expenses claimed by the Senator were not for parliamentary
business, or where there was insufficient information to enable us to determine whether the expenses
had been incurred for parliamentary business.
1. The Senator’s declared primary residence was in Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories.
Fort Simpson is 630 kilometres or eight hours by car from Yellowknife. Given the duration of travel
required between his residence and Ottawa, we considered a one-night stopover to be a reasonable
practice.
2. Over the audit period, we found nine instances when these stopovers by the Senator and/or
his spouse were longer than one day. The Senator stated that he usually attended meetings during
stopovers and that he and/or his spouse sometimes stayed with or visited family or friends. The Senate
Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for
that use. We received no additional documentation for the purpose of these stopovers or the events that
took place during those times. However, we found that some extended stopovers were for personal
activities. On the basis of the information available, we determined that the expenses incurred during
the additional days of the stopovers were not for parliamentary business. The incremental cost for
these stays, including accommodations, per diems, car rental, and mileage, was $4,436.
3. We found that the Senator’s spouse did not always travel at the same times or to the same
locations as the Senator, including five instances when she travelled to Ottawa without the Senator.
The Senator stated that his spouse travelled to maintain the integrity of the family unit. The
Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines recognize that a Senator’s parliamentary functions can result
in frequent and lengthy periods of separation from family, and have provided for family-reunion
travel as an important contributor to the health and well-being of Senators and their families.
However, we determined that the spouse’s trips on these occasions did not respect the objective
of family reunification, because the expenses were incurred for personal activities, including
reuniting with independent adult children and their families, rather than with the Senator and
any dependants. The cost of these trips, including per diems, accommodations, airfare, mileage,
car rental, and taxis, was $13,133.
4. We also found several instances where there was insufficient information to enable us to
determine whether the travel claims made by the Senator, for trips within western Canada and the
territories, were for parliamentary business. The Senator stated that the purpose of these trips was
to meet with community members in his region. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every
person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional

Senators’ Expenses

109

 documentation for the purpose of these trips or the events that took place at that time. On the basis of
the information available, we were unable to determine whether the expenses were for parliamentary
business. The cost of the trips, including per diems, accommodations, airfare, mileage, car rental, and
taxis, was $27,629.

Findings—other
We found several instances of other expenses incurred by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business or that we were unable to determine were for parliamentary business.
5. The Senator incurred hospitality expenses, to a maximum amount of $2,457, for which we
were unable to determine whether they were for parliamentary business.
6. We found that the Senator took taxi trips in Ottawa for personal activities. The total cost for these
trips was $913.
7. We found several occasions where records showed that the Senator’s cell phone was being used
by someone else, in another location. We also found that the Senator’s staff had text-messaging
charges that were for personal activities. The cost of these telecommunications charges was $1,534.

The Senator’s comments
All versions of the Senate policy—both the two in effect during the review period and the current
one—permit combination of Senate and private business. None of the policies address the issue of
stopovers at all, let alone limiting them to a single day, or require the most direct route (provided a
different route does not increase costs). In cases where no parliamentary business was conducted,
no additional expenses were ever claimed. This was a consistent pattern and the Auditor should
recognize that. In some cases, I did stay with family while holding meetings with constituents.
This reduced costs to the government. Given the high cost of northern travel, it was common sense
to combine public and private business, particularly when I passed through Yellowknife during trips
between home and Ottawa.
Senate rules permit spouses to travel with Senators but don’t require travel to occur on the same day
as that of the Senator. Generally, [my wife] travelled with me but on occasion we travelled at different
times. The Senate policy referred to “family unification” as the reason for permitting spouse travel.
The Auditor General interpreted this narrowly as always travelling together. The real “intent” of the
policy was to support families—including attending to things that cause stress, such as worries about
protecting the family home from freeze-up during winter or concerns over the well-being of family
members. I rely on my wife to attend to these matters when I can’t.
As the sole Senator representing the Northwest Territories, I am a well-known public figure whenever
I travel to northern communities. As soon as I arrive, residents immediately approach me to strike up
conversations about issues of concern. In essence, I am always on the job. A southern Senator can
choose to be anonymous but I can’t. Of course, such conversations are unplanned; even visits to
community leaders are largely spontaneous. Formal meetings are sometimes scheduled with
government officials but otherwise the way in which business is done is casual. I never travelled
to communities without good reason and always worked while there.
It would be considered unusual, even rude, to immediately record information in a notebook.
I followed up with phone calls, or asked my staff to act. Perhaps I could have been better at keeping

110

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 records. Still, while there may be no documents in every case, work got done. The Auditor should
understand that. Where records were found, I provided them; many claims were proven that way.
Claims where sufficient information was not provided were often identical to the proven ones.
I believe I demonstrated a pattern of carrying out parliamentary business that could be assumed
in those cases. I remember every meeting and am only criticized for the lack of paperwork.
Finally, travel in the North is expensive, so even a few questioned claims can quickly add up. A similar
report on a Toronto Senator would only be in the thousands of dollars. Readers should consider that
when looking at this report.

Senators’ Expenses

111

 Senator Terry Stratton (retired)
Province: Manitoba
Appointment date: 25 March 1993
Retirement date: 16 March 2013
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$5,466

Findings—travel
We found two instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. From 15 to 18 June 2012, the Senator travelled round-trip from Ottawa to Calgary, instead of
travelling home to Winnipeg, the location of his primary residence. His spouse travelled round-trip
from Winnipeg to Calgary to accompany him and returned to Winnipeg on 20 June 2012. The
Senator’s calendar did not include any information on the nature of parliamentary business that
took place in Calgary for that period. The Senator stated that the purpose was a farewell trip and
that he also visited family. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses
Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation or
explanations for the purpose of this trip or the events that took place during it. On the basis of the
information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary
business. The incremental cost of the trip, calculated as the cost of airfare for the Senator and his
spouse, car rental, accommodations, and per diems, less the cost of airfare for the Senator flying
home to Winnipeg and returning to Ottawa, was $3,288.
2. From 22 to 26 November 2012, the Senator again travelled round-trip from Ottawa to Calgary.
On the same dates, his spouse joined him from Winnipeg. According to the expense claims, the
purpose of the trip was for meetings. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who
uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. Based on the information available,
including the explanations we received from the Senator on the purpose of the trip, we determined
that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The incremental cost of the
trip, calculated as the cost of airfare for the Senator and his spouse, car rental, accommodations, and
per diems, less the cost of airfare for the Senator flying home to Winnipeg and returning to Ottawa,
was $2,178.

The former Senator’s comments
Since I have been told by you to limit my response to 500 words or less, I shall be brief. I also ask
that there be no editing of this response.
My reaction to your latest letter is to disagree once again with its findings, even though there has
been a reduction in the amount requested.

Senators’ Expenses

113

 In the first instance of travel, as I reported to you previously, I travelled at the request of my leadership
in order to deal with a sensitive issue that needed to be dealt with directly with the individual. It did
not to my knowledge, involve the government; rather its aim was to limit embarrassment to two of
the countries institutions. I view that as one of the roles of a senator and one that I have utilized at
other times in my former role as a whip, with other individuals or senators. In each case I carried out
meetings face to face with the individual involved in order to send a clear message, in an attempt, not
always successful, of preventing a problem from occurring.
The second instance of travel can be resolved by accepting that I left the Senate two weeks early,
recognizing that any expense on my part that was deemed to be inadmissible by you, could be covered
off by the savings accrued to the Senate in air travel, hotels and per diem expenses for those two weeks.
That was the primary reason that I left two weeks before my mandatory retirement date.
Lastly, I must implore the Prime Minister, at the time of the next election, in order to limit expense,
to have a referendum on the abolition of the Senate. This despite the decision of the Supreme Court
who seem to limit their decisions to narrow confines of their interpretation of the law.
After all, who governs Canada, the Supreme Court, or Parliament?
The Prime Minister has a higher obligation on behalf of all Canadians to call this question in order
to put it behind us, once and for all.

114

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015

 Senator David Tkachuk
Province: Saskatchewan
Appointment date: 8 June 1993
For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013
Total amount of items referred to the Internal Economy Committee
(including applicable taxes)

$7,391

Findings—travel
We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary
business.
1. On 8 November 2011, the Senator flew from Saskatoon to Ottawa to attend a private corporation’s
board meeting and other non-Senate meetings in the afternoon and the following morning. He flew
back to Saskatoon early in the afternoon of 9 November 2011. On the basis of the information
available, we determined that the trip was for private business activities. The cost of the trip
was $3,800.
2. In November 2011, after Senate business in Ottawa, the Senator flew to Vancouver to attend
the 50th wedding anniversary of another Senator. His spouse flew in from Saskatoon on the same
day to join him. They spent the night in Vancouver and returned to Saskatoon the next day.
The incremental cost for the Senator’s travel was $858, and the cost for his spouse’s attendance
was $1,076. These costs included airfare, per diems, car rental, accommodations, and taxis.
We determined that these expenses were primarily for personal activities.
3. On seven occasions, the Senator extended his stay in Ottawa or stopped in Toronto while
travelling to Ottawa or elsewhere. While parliamentary business took place in Ottawa on each
of these trips, the extended stays or stopovers were for private business activities or personal interests.
The incremental cost of these stopovers or extended stays, including accommodations, per diems,
and taxis, was $1,657.

The Senator’s comments
ITEM 1
• After reviewing the issue with the OAG, I agree this travel claim should have been shared, since
it combined private and public business, and I will reimburse $1,900. It was an administrative
error for which I take responsibility.
ITEM 2
• Like funerals, anniversaries are personal for family and often political for politicians. Attendance
at this event is permitted under the rules that allow attendance at funerals of parliamentary
colleagues and participation in party activities and community events. Senator St. Germain,
who lives in my region, was not only a parliamentary colleague of mine, but a political VIP.

Senators’ Expenses

115

 ITEM 3
• The OAG concluded that on two of my trips to Ottawa I should not have stayed overnight after
a day of conducting Senate business; expecting me, instead, to fly back to Saskatoon the same
day as I flew into Ottawa. The Senate rules are clear that staying overnight and flying out the
next day is allowed.
• Contrary to a Senator who rents or owns a place in Ottawa, and is compensated for every day of
the year, I am compensated only for the time I spend in Ottawa. We are governed by an annual
limit on meals and accommodation expenses.
• The 64-point system is designed so that Senators living at distance from Ottawa are not
inordinately disadvantaged compared to those Senators who live in close proximity to the
Senate and have access to their office every day of the year.
• Stopovers in Toronto on the way to Ottawa from Saskatoon and back are an unavoidable aspect
of Canadian air travel. I organize my travel as efficiently as possible.
• All my tickets were seamless and in one case under question I spent extra time at the airport
between flights so I could take advantage of a sale ticket ($868.33 return). On two occasions,
I left Saskatoon late on Sunday night, rather than early Sunday morning, and stopped over
in Toronto.
• The last stopover in question was cleared by Senate finance before the travel began.
• On both issues (extended stay in Ottawa and stopovers), the determination of the OAG will
put an undue strain on those Senators who have to travel great distances to be in Ottawa.
• The OAG and I are in dispute about two travel points out of the 57 I used over two fiscal years.
While my record of attendance in the Senate is excellent, I used less than half of the 64 travel
points allotted to me for each of the years under audit.
The OAG raised important issues on participation by Parliamentarians in events organized for
other Parliamentarians and on how we arrange our travel. I understand that the issues in dispute
will be submitted to the Internal Economy Committee. If they conclude that an error was made in
interpreting the rules, I will reimburse any amount owed. I think all these issues merit careful review,
however, so that Senators’ ability to do their jobs is appropriately balanced against their obligation
to taxpayers.

Subsequent event
On 7 May 2015, the Senate received a payment in the amount of $1,900.22 to the Receiver General
for Canada.

116

Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—June 2015