Senators ordered to provide proof of residence
Drivers’ licences, health cards, tax returns among required documents in expense claim probe
A Senate committee looking into expense claims has ordered all members of the Upper Chamber to hand over documentation to auditors proving they maintain primary residences in the provinces they represent.
The Senate’s internal economy committee set Thursday as the deadline for all Senators to provide clear copies of their drivers’ licences, provincial health cards and relevant pages from their income tax returns to prove their primary addresses.
In a letter sent on December 12, the committee also instructed Senators to submit a signed letter stating where they vote federally, provincially and municipally.
The exacting demands for documentation suggests that the Senate is taking seriously concerns that some senators may have wrongly claimed living expenses for “secondary residences” in the National Capital Region.
Senators from outside the region are allowed to claim housing and living expenses in Ottawa or Gatineau when away from their primary residences. Of greater issue than expenses, however, is whether they actually live in the provinces they represent, as required by the constitution.
It is unclear what sanctions, if any, will apply those unable to provide documentation backing up their signed declarations attesting to live in their home provinces.
“Residency is a very complicated issue,” Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the internal committee. “The Senate has never tested it. Even when we get (the documentation), I’m not sure what we’re going to do with it.”
The Senate launched the audit after a series of media reports showed that some senators who had lived mainly in the National Capital Region were able to claim their homes in Ottawa or Gatineau as secondary residences.
Senate records showed that Conservative Senator Mike Duffy and Liberal Senator Mac Harb — who are both longtime residents of Ottawa — had each billed for expenses related to “secondary” homes in the city.
Duffy, who represents Prince Edward Island, spent most of his career as a television journalist covering Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Elections Canada records list him as eligible to vote in the Ottawa-area federal riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills, not in P.E.I.
Duffy and his wife bought their current home near a Kanata golf course five years before Stephen Harper named him to the Senate. He has charged the Senate $33,413 for living expenses in Ottawa since 2010, according to Senate records.
Duffy says he did nothing wrong and insists a home near Cavendish, P.E.I., he bought 15 years ago is his primary residence. He says he has spent more than $100,000 renovating the home in recent years.
Harb claimed $31,000 in National Capital expenses by listing a bungalow near Pembroke as his primary residence. It is more than 100 kilometres from Ottawa — the distance required under Senate rules to count as outside the capital region.
Harb has lived in Ottawa since emigrating from Lebanon. He is a former Ottawa city councillor who later represented the riding of Ottawa-Centre before he was elevated to the Upper Chamber by then-prime minister Jean Chrétien.
Harb owns several properties in Ottawa, including a condominium near Hog’s Back that he has used as his mailing address in legal documents. Harb also says his expense claims were entirely legal.
A CTV News report last year raised questions about why Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau claimed residency expenses while living in Gatineau. Brazeau lists his primary residence in his father’s apartment in Maniwaki, the report said.
A subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy is conducting separate investigations into the residency of Brazeau and Harb. That process is expected to conclude in February.
The broader audit of residency documentation is led by Jill Anne Joseph, the Senate’s director of internal audit and strategic planning.
Although there appears to be no clear precedent on the matter, it would likely take a challenge initiated by a Senator to remove another member from the chamber, a process that could become combative and partisan.
Also unclear is whether the audit will become public. That will be decided by the committee once the audit is completed.