Senators want job defined in audit jitters
Some fear definition may change allowable expense claims
The Speaker of the Senate, reflecting the concerns some senators have over the auditor general’s investigation of the upper chamber, appealed to Michael Ferguson in a recent letter to agree on what, exactly, is in a senator’s job description.
Senate sources say Ferguson responded with a short, courteous acknowledgment of the concerns numerous senators have quietly shared as the audit moves along, but revealed little else.
People who have seen the exchange of letters say Senate Speaker Pierre Claude Nolin and the auditor general appear to have different ideas of what is included in the job of a senator. This point of friction could have political and financial ramifications once Ferguson’s audit of the red chamber is complete, currently scheduled for June.
The audit itself is a result of the Senate spending saga that began in late 2012 with now-suspended Sen. Mike Duffy, who goes on trial next week on 31 criminal charges. That trial will, of necessity, touch on the duties of a senator, given that 18 of Duffy’s 31 criminal charges have to do with his travel and whether this was for Senate business.
Sen. Pamela Wallin was suspended without pay over her travel claims, which the RCMP alleged in court documents earlier this year included about $27,000 worth of fraud. The RCMP alleged Wallin fabricated meetings, charged taxpayers for flights and travel related to her work on corporate boards, and misrepresented many of her trips to Toronto even when confronted by external auditors, but expensed all under the banner of “parliamentary business” — a catch-all phrase that captures anything a senator believes is part of the job. Wallin denies wrongdoing.
Many senators continue to use the term “parliamentary business” on public expense disclosures to explain a particular claim.
The definition of “parliamentary business” or “Senate business” is what determines whether a senator can expense a flight or meal to taxpayers. For years, the Senate’s own interpretation has included allowing senators to travel around the country to promote causes or speak to groups if they are invited as a senator.
Even some partisan work is allowed, but not “purely partisan” work, according to Senate spending rules.
Senators, like MPs, can’t expense flights and meals related to their personal affairs or private business interests. But while the rules in the Commons and Senate appear similar, the Senate’s internal economy committee has twice in the last two years been forced to clear up ambiguities in expense rules.
All expenses have come under scrutiny in the auditor general’s Senate audit. Auditors have asked about travel, meals, phone calls and even postage for Christmas cards. So how the auditor general defines parliamentary business is key to what happens next.
Nolin’s letter to Ferguson, around
Auditors have asked about travel, meals, phone calls and even postage for Christmas cards.
Christmas, discussed the parameters of parliamentary privileges, highlighted the role of senators and discussed the Senate’s constitutionality. The underlying message was the audit was supposed to identify problems with expense claims and oversight; it wasn’t supposed to define what a senator should or shouldn’t do in the job.
Sources who viewed the letters — Nolin allowed senators to read them, but not remove them from his office — described Ferguson’s response as, basically: Thank you, Speaker, for your opinion. Little more was said.
Ferguson’s office didn’t indicate how auditors were defining “parliamentary business,” telling the Citizen that was part of the audit’s methodology, “which will not be discussed while the work is ongoing.” The auditor general’s definition of “parliamentary business” could run up against problems: senators could reject his interpretation, since they are allowed to define the boundaries of Senate business under the Parliament of Canada Act.
What that may mean to any recommendation from Ferguson on repaying expenses is unclear.