Strange bedfellows, indeed
Socially conservative ex-Tory MP backs NDP in court jurisdiction fight
Former Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott has found an unusual ally in his legal battle with a House of Commons board over his past expense claims.
Vellacott, a staunch social conservative, won approval from the Federal Court of Canada to intervene in the ongoing dispute between the Commons Board of Internal Economy and a group of 68 current and former New Democrat MPs.
The NDP MPs are challenging the board’s finding that they must repay taxpayers for a combined $2.7 million over the satellite office affair as well as another $1.3 million in the costs of taxpayer funded mailings to constituents that the board says were partisan in nature.
Vellacott will use his intervener status to support the NDP’s position on a jurisdictional issue — arguing the Federal Court has the right to review the board’s decisions and set them aside if necessary.
He went to court this summer after the board refused three years worth of per diems he charged the House of Commons for time he spent in Ottawa.
In the satellite office case, the board — made up of Conservative, Liberal and NDP MPs — contends that the NDP MPs wrongly used parts of their office budgets to fund staff operating out of party offices in Montreal and Quebec City.
In both the satellite offices case and Vellacott’s case, the government side maintains that the Federal Court has no business overturning a decision that is made by a parliamentary committee.
If the court agrees on this jurisdictional issue, neither the NDP MPs nor Vellacott will have grounds to challenge the board’s decisions in court.
Nicholas McHaffie, the lawyer acting for Vellacott, says one case that will be relevant is that of Satnam Vaid, a driver for former Speaker Gib Parent and filed a human rights complaint against him.
Vaid’s complaint forced government lawyers into the awkward position of contending that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply on Parliament Hill. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that MPs invoking the protection of parliamentary privilege must prove in the case at hand that it relates to their ability to work as legislators free from interference.
An outspoken anti-abortion MP, Vellacott served six terms as the MP for the Saskatchewan riding of Saskatoon — Wanuskewin. He did not stand for re-election this year.
The Federal Court agreed last week to suspend Vellacott’s litigation against the board pending a ruling on the NDP cases.
Although the case has put Vellacott in league with the NDP on the jurisdiction issue, the principles at stake are more closely allied to one element in the ongoing criminal trial of Sen. Mike Duffy, a former Conservative. The board claims Vellacott wrongly claimed to be primarily resident in Saskatchewan while charging residency expenses for a secondary residence in Ottawa. Vellacott and his wife bought the Ottawa home in 2004 and, he claims in court, by so doing saved money he would have otherwise spent on hotels and travel.
MPs may claim up to $900 per month towards the cost of renting or owning a home in the National Capital Region, instead of staying in hotels at taxpayer expense.
Questions about Duffy’s residency claims for time in Ottawa, while claiming to be primarily resident in Prince Edward Island, were the first volleys fired in what became the Senate expenses scandal.
Vellacott also says he was never challenged about his Ottawa residency expenses until the board told him his per diem claims would not be paid.
Hearings on the NDP cases are not expected to be heard until May, McHaffie said.