# Senators' expenses



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2015)

Really?


> A Conservative senator today bristled at questions auditors have put to her about her expenses, saying she shouldn't be expected to eat airline breakfasts.
> 
> "If you want ice-cold camembert with broken crackers, have it!" said Senator Nancy Ruth.
> 
> ...


Here's what the Treasury Board has to say about meals in and out of Canada while travelling:


> A meal allowance shall not be paid to a traveller with respect to a meal that is provided. *In exceptional situations where a traveller has incurred out of pocket expenses to supplement meals provided, the actual incurred costs may be reimbursed, based on receipts*, up to the applicable meal allowance.



After certain events, I understand virtually every public servant/bureaucrat in Canada had to take an at-least-one-day course on Values and Ethics.  Do Senators get such things?  Do they get briefings on the rules?  Do their staff?  If a dummy like myself can find the above reference ....


----------



## cupper (2 Apr 2015)

Must be nice to get a meal on an airline flight. 



> "I just don't think they understand anything of what it's like to have to fly around the world to get here to Ottawa."
> 
> *Ruth lives in Toronto.*


:facepalm:


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Apr 2015)

Issue them all 24 hours of MREs and a bottle of halazone tablets.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Apr 2015)

Meh. Slow news day. So she claims that the meal service on Air Canada is sub-standard -- I just looked at the Air Canada schedule, and according to them, on a Business Class Toronto-Ottawa flight, a continental breakfast is served. On flights later in the day what is served is described as a "snack". The standard for soldiers and for the public service when on travel status is a hot breakfast. Quite frankly, if the military is willing to go to the effort to provide me and my troops a hot breakfast when travelling on duty, I'm not going to begrudge a serving Senator her bacon and eggs. 

Now, if you think that CFTDI and PS Travel Directive is excessive, and that no one really needs bacon and eggs in the morning anymore, everyone should have Timbits, that's a legitimate opinion. But maybe we should rewrite the directives first before this Senator gets criticised for violating them.

This is pretty minor compared to the "IR Fraud" that is currently all the rage in the Senate. It's just breakfast. Doesn't everyone like breakfast?


----------



## DBA (2 Apr 2015)

What is more shocking to me in the article linked:



> 40 auditors working full-time
> 
> About 40 auditors hired by the auditor general are working on the Senate expenses file in any given month, poring over claims related mostly to travel and housing.



Spending so much time, money and effort to minutely audit a budget the size of what the Senate has seems very wasteful. Looks to be more of a witch hunt than sound financial auditing - it is foolish to spend $100's to audit a $15 breakfast (guessing at the $ value).


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2015)

DBA said:
			
		

> What is more shocking to me in the article linked:
> 
> Spending so much time, money and effort to minutely audit a budget the size of what the Senate has seems very wasteful. Looks to be more of a witch hunt than sound financial auditing - it is foolish to spend $100's to audit a $15 breakfast (guessing at the $ value).




I actually _think_ (just hope?) it might be money well spent if, as good audit reports should, it recommends concrete, legal and administratively clear methods to manage the costs of _The Hill_, including expenses and constituency offices.

     (I am a bit of a radical, but I _believe_ that the Government of Canada should contract it's own administration (what Treasure Board does, mainly) out to a big, reputable management/financial consulting firm ...
      something like McKinsey & Co, Deloitte, PwC (_caveat lector_, my son is a VP, albeit in Australia) or Ernst and Young. I think contracted management, in phases (redesign, first, then a public-private partnership (PPP) where Canada pays
      and the contractor operates the _system_ for a fix, say 10 year, contract period) could be qualitatively better and quantitatively cheaper for taxpayers.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Meh. Slow news day. So she claims that the meal service on Air Canada is sub-standard -- I just looked at the Air Canada schedule, and according to them, on a Business Class Toronto-Ottawa flight, a continental breakfast is served. On flights later in the day what is served is described as a "snack". *The standard for soldiers and for the public service when on travel status is a hot breakfast*.


Do you have a ref for that bit in yellow?  I've been in the public service for 10+ years, and have never been briefed on, or seen a reference, saying I'm entitled to a hot breakfast.

If that's a rule in writing, cool - the Senator (and I, from here on in) could file a receipt for a breakfast top-up.  If that's just what "they" say, though, she's complaining about following a rule everyone else in the (at least non-uniform) public service has to follow.



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> This is pretty minor compared to the "IR Fraud" that is currently all the rage in the Senate. It's just breakfast. Doesn't everyone like breakfast?


To be fair, I should be clear:  my complaint is not necessarily about the _individual_ but about the _ATTITUDE_ of, "the breakfast that's given to me sucks, so I'll just claim for it" when 1)  others in the system either can't, or 2) there are rules that could be followed that weren't.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I actually _think_ (just hope?) it might be money well spent if, as good audit reports should, it recommends concrete, legal and administratively clear methods to manage the costs of _The Hill_, including expenses and constituency offices.


Agreed.  I think you'd have to agree, though, that this latest exercise is one of being seen to be doing something post-Duffy-et-al, as opposed to a "what's the real problem and how do we deal with it?" exercise.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Do you have a ref for that bit in yellow?  I've been in the public service for 10+ years, and have never been briefed on, or seen a reference, saying I'm entitled to a hot breakfast.



This is a link to a grievance decision from 2014 -- where a group of public servants didn't eat the continental breakfast buffet in their hotel, bought their own breakfasts, and submitted receipts. The department in question submitted in their case that "the Department has identified specific exceptional situations under which a reimbursement for a supplementary meal may be provided. They are for health reasons (diabetes, allergies, restrictive diet) or instances where the meal provided is limited, _*for instance a continental breakfast consisting only of a coffee and a muffin.*_" The only dispute in this case was whether a continental breakfast buffet was close enough to a meal to count as an actual breakfast. It isn't; the grievance was upheld and the public servants got their money for their bacon and eggs.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/decision.php?lang=eng&decision_id=1554

This is on travel status only, of course. Just as a civil servant is required to pay for your own commute, they have to buy their own breakfast on a day to day basis. And of course, it's the established tradition in this department that a boxed lunch or IMP counts as a meal just as much as a hay box or steam line meal.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (2 Apr 2015)

Back in the day, I used to hear the expression, rank has it's privilege and I don't remember anyone apologizing for it.  The attack on the Senate is purely bizarre.  Arguing over a breakfast is pure stupidity.  Just like that silly $ 16 orange juice as if anyone ever asked the price of orange juice before ordering it.  I am delighted about one thing - that the rest of the Senate has "coming around what goed around" in their treatment of Duffy and Wallin.  All the impotent senators, jealous of the respect shown to Duffy and Wallin were like giddy schoolgirls bringing them down and didn't see that it was their turn next.

Spending 10 or 20 times any recovery to audit the Senate is senseless.  In the normal world, an auditor auditing a breakfast receipt would be considered incompetent, not meeting the standard of materiality.  It's all showboating.  A big part of the problem is people in the Senate with active political careers are being second guessed on each trip by the Senate slugs.  Was Wallin going to a University graduation political or personal?  In reality, it was probably both.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2015)

The issue isn't bacon and eggs or orange juice, no matter how expensive. The issue is: how does the Parliament of Canada (and the Government of Canada for that matter) _manage_ itself? Does it have good, clear, effective rules and procedures?

My answers two the two questions are: "ineptly," and "No!"

A good audit should make that clear and it should offer concrete proposals to do things right ... not just _better_, _right_.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> This is a link to a grievance decision from 2014 -- where a group of public servants didn't eat the continental breakfast buffet in their hotel, bought their own breakfasts, and submitted receipts. The department in question submitted in their case that "the Department has identified specific exceptional situations under which a reimbursement for a supplementary meal may be provided. They are for health reasons (diabetes, allergies, restrictive diet) or instances where the meal provided is limited, _*for instance a continental breakfast consisting only of a coffee and a muffin.*_" The only dispute in this case was whether a continental breakfast buffet was close enough to a meal to count as an actual breakfast. It isn't; the grievance was upheld and the public servants got their money for their bacon and eggs.
> 
> http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/decision.php?lang=eng&decision_id=1554
> 
> This is on travel status only, of course. Just as a civil servant is required to pay for your own commute, they have to buy their own breakfast on a day to day basis. And of course, it's the established tradition in this department that a boxed lunch or IMP counts as a meal just as much as a hay box or steam line meal.


Thanks LOADS for that reference - milpoints inbound.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The issue is: how does the Parliament of Canada (and the Government of Canada for that matter) _manage_ itself? Does it have good, clear, effective rules and procedures?


And, one might hope, are said rules & procedures being followed?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...
> And, one might hope, are said rules & procedures being followed?




I think the reason Michael Ferguson has a reinforced platoon of auditors on _The Hill_ is because it's pretty clear that the "rules," whatever they are, aren't being followed.

I _suspect_ that one of the reasons the rules aren't being followed is because they are poorly drafted. In fairness, many (most?) Senators obey the _spirit_ of the law and keep their partisan political and personal 'lives' separate from their Senate 'life,' but my _sense_ is that the rules were written 100 years ago for _gentlemen_ and, in the 21st century, the _gentlemen_ have left the pitch and turned the game over to the _players_.


----------



## Privateer (2 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> (I am a bit of a radical, but I _believe_ that the Government of Canada should contract it's own administration (what Treasure Board does, mainly) out to a big, reputable management/financial consulting firm ...
> something like McKinsey & Co, Deloitte, PwC (_caveat lector_, my son is a VP, albeit in Australia) or Ernst and Young. I think contracted management, in phases (redesign, first, then a public-private partnership (PPP) where Canada pays
> and the contractor operates the _system_ for a fix, say 10 year, contract period) could be qualitatively better and quantitatively cheaper for taxpayers.)



Having seen the effect of having large accounting firms appointed as receivers of corporations, I question this approach.  They always seem to need a cast of thousands, and somehow most of the value in the corporation ends up being expended as fees for the receiver, leaving little left for the parties intended to benefit from the exercise.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2015)

WRT super detailed audits; the primary benefit is to strike the smug sense of entitlement from certain members of the politcal class. Hopefully this will also resonate in other areas of politics, government and the civil service (although I won't be holding my breath in anticipation).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Apr 2015)

Put her on a J model with standard flight feeding and bathroom facilities.   That level of comfort is acceptable for those who truly serve Canada including Officers, so it should be good enough for the folks in that organization too.  Right?


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2015)

- My Squadron Clerks told me what I was entitled to. TBS set the standards and DND followed them. Perhaps the senators should get an Orderly Room staffed with a few hard assed RMS clerks to do their claims. Anything excessive gets denied and comes out of their pay.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Apr 2015)

Chronicle Herald Cartoon

Maybe she's entitled to a better breakfast, maybe.  But, the optics of her temper tantrum rant as a Senator is atrocious.  Once again they come across, however fairly or unfairly (as per your opinion) as having an inflated sense of entitlement and importance above the plebs.  A bunch of Dave Dingwalls, "entitled to my entitlements" to many of their fellow Canadians.  Myself included.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2015)

I remember years ago, when the CAF had regular Service Flights flying coast to coast three times weekly and to Europe twice weekly, sitting in the AMU awaiting a flight overseas and going up for a snack at the canteen.  The guy in a suit in front of me at the cashier pulls out a "GST Exempt" card to buy his coffee.  Crap!  A coffee, and he wants to save paying the GST.  Turns out he was a Senator.....and a cheap one at that.  Flying Service Air.  

Yes, there are a lot of perks that these folk take advantage of, that could be considered quite questionable by us 'common folk'.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Having seen the effect of having large accounting firms appointed as receivers of corporations, I question this approach.  They always seem to need a cast of thousands, and somehow most of the value in the corporation ends up being expended as fees for the receiver, leaving little left for the parties intended to benefit from the exercise.



I would support Privateer on this observation - and it does not apply only to Accountants. It applies equally to all of the "intellectual property services" - including lawyers, engineers and architects.   Jaded as I am I have come to conclude that the primary function of all of these guilds is to employ as many members as possible for the greatest number of hours without ever being responsible for delivering anything of use.

I would much rather have my services delivered by the organization responsible for delivering the goods.  The evaluation of the quality of the service becomes pretty easy then.

Clerks... I fart in their general direction.


----------



## Spartan (3 Apr 2015)

I don't understand this hoopla that the esteemed Senate is creating. I fully understand that the Upper House is left to run things as they see fit. I don't see how having rules that approximate what the Treasury Board has already in place for the government departments, or having rules that approximate what the Board of Internal Economy has deemed necessary for MPs, would be such a hindrance. It would help in appeasing the general population about government dollars being used wisely (or at least being accountable). 

If the Auditor General is an independent office reporting to Parliament, then having an Auditor General do work in the Senate should not be a problem. 

This is what irritates me more in all of this. Thou dost protest too much. As a taxpayer, both Assemblies should be accountable, at least to what extent our current system allows for. All public funds and budgets should be accessible online. 

I am not trying to discuss the merits / lack there of having a senate, but rather surprised at the amount of misdirection that this will cause in the lead up to an election.


----------



## cupper (3 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would support Privateer on this observation - and it does not apply only to Accountants. It applies equally to all of the "intellectual property services" - including lawyers, engineers and architects.   Jaded as I am I have come to conclude that the primary function of all of these guilds is to employ as many members as possible for the greatest number of hours without ever being responsible for delivering anything of use.
> 
> I would much rather have my services delivered by the organization responsible for delivering the goods.  The evaluation of the quality of the service becomes pretty easy then.
> 
> Clerks... I fart in their general direction.



Oh no you didn't!


----------



## Tibbson (3 Apr 2015)

DBA said:
			
		

> What is more shocking to me in the article linked:
> 
> Spending so much time, money and effort to minutely audit a budget the size of what the Senate has seems very wasteful. Looks to be more of a witch hunt than sound financial auditing - it is foolish to spend $100's to audit a $15 breakfast (guessing at the $ value).



I was involved in working with a government forensic auditor for a while and he was billing DND like $30k a month for his services.  I can well imagine what the costs for 40 auditors would be.  Add to that the costs for Pam Wallin's and Patrick Duffy's files and I'd bet the costs to "catch" them all is well in excess of any misappropriated funds.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Oh no you didn't!




Ooooooh Yes I Did!

I have seen inside the belly of the beast.  ;D


----------



## Jed (4 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would support Privateer on this observation - and it does not apply only to Accountants. It applies equally to all of the "intellectual property services" - including lawyers, engineers and architects.   Jaded as I am I have come to conclude that the primary function of all of these guilds is to employ as many members as possible for the greatest number of hours without ever being responsible for delivering anything of use.
> 
> I would much rather have my services delivered by the organization responsible for delivering the goods.  The evaluation of the quality of the service becomes pretty easy then.
> 
> Clerks... I fart in their general direction.



I would add Doctors to this list as well,


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Chronicle Herald Cartoon
> 
> Maybe she's entitled to a better breakfast, maybe.  But, the optics of her temper tantrum rant as a Senator is atrocious.  Once again they come across, however fairly or unfairly (as per your opinion) as having an inflated sense of entitlement and importance above the plebs.  A bunch of Dave Dingwalls, "entitled to my entitlements" to many of their fellow Canadians.  Myself included.



The optics suck BUT many of those who whine and complain would do the same thing as the Senator did.

Hypocrites.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Apr 2015)

The prosecutor said that Duffy might not even qualify to be a senator based on residency.  Boy is he wrong - silly mistake.  Duffy only had to be a resident of PEI.  Jurisprudence says you can have multiple legal residences.  The Constitution Act 1867 also says that time spent in Ottawa, acting as a senator don't count.  If you don't include Ottawa, he is clearly a PEI resident for senate purposes.

There are more amateur mistakes coming.  They applied residency tests to Duffy such as for Driver's Licenses, Healthcare, Income Taxes when they are clearly irrelevant.  They are a hodge-podge of irrelevant laws while the Constitution provides all the framework needed.  While Duffy may not win, he certainly has a case.

23. The Qualifications of a Senator shall be as follows:
    (1)(2)
    (3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same;
    (4) His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above his Debts and Liabilities;
    (5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;
    (6) In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

31 (5)  If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there.


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2015)

Why are senators aand MP's still having to provide receipts? Why aren't they on the same per diem as the rest of us. Would certainly save a lot of agnst. 

You can bath in champagne and eat cavier to your hearts delight. You will only get the daily meal rate when you are on government buisness.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Apr 2015)

Before calling the prosecutors "amateurs", some fact finding, further than reading a single article of the Constitution and deciding by yourself the meaning of it, is required.

First of all, numerous decisions of the courts in Canada have defined "residence", and while they have often concluded that you can have more than one residence, all such residences required that certain characteristics attach to the situation (residence here is not a reference to a physical building): It has been found to be a place where a "person regularly, normally or customarily lives, the place where he/she has centralized his/her existence." 

It is a well known fact that Mr Duffy owns a (four-season) cottage in P.E.I. and only goes there for his holidays. It is not his customary place of living nor has he "centralized" his existence there. This has been so from well before he was appointed to the Senate. He has been living in Ottawa ever since he moved himself there permanently while working for CTV, and he hasn't been "seen" around P.E.I. very much ever since.

Moreover, the Constitution, like most federal laws, can be interpreted by reference to the French and English versions and deciding from their combined text the real intent of the drafters. In the present case, the French version of your article of the Constitution refers to senators having to be "domiciled" in the division for which they are appointed, a notion that allows only ONE such domicile as opposed to multiple ones. The term "domiciled" used in French would tend to qualify the use of "residence" in English to mean "ordinary residence", which in itself also allows only of a single location.

In both cases, the demonstration that the prosecutor is making is neither amateurish, nor improper, but perfectly adapted to the situation.

A much better defence for Mr. Duffy is to clearly indicate that the nature and location of his various homes, in Ottawa and P.E.I. were fully disclosed to Mr. Harper and that, in the act of appointment, Mr. Harper on behalf of the Queen's government formally recognized him as a resident of P.E.I. Since this action of the crown has not been challenged before an appropriate court to be set aside, it is not up to a criminal court to determine its validity at this time.

All this said, however, it remains that the entitlement Mr. Duffy is accused of abusing is clearly aimed at providing newly appointed senators with the funds necessary for them to keep their actual residence (domicile) where they live at the time while simultaneously providing for another  place to live while they are on the lengthy Senate business in Ottawa - it is that second place, in Ottawa, that is subsidized. It is not meant to suddenly pay for someone's Ottawa home where they already live full time at the moment of their appointment. Mr. Duffy still has some 'splainin to do.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Apr 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Before calling the prosecutors "amateurs", some fact finding, further than reading a single article of the Constitution and deciding by yourself the meaning of it, is required.
> 
> All this said, however, it remains that the entitlement Mr. Duffy is accused of abusing is clearly aimed at providing newly appointed senators with the funds necessary for them to keep their actual residence (domicile) where they live at the time while simultaneously providing for another  place to live while they are on the lengthy Senate business in Ottawa - it is that second place, in Ottawa, that is subsidized. It is not meant to suddenly pay for someone's Ottawa home where they already live full time at the moment of their appointment. Mr. Duffy still has some 'splainin to do.



1st part - the beauty of my example is that it is written in plain English and is obvious but his eligibility for the Senate is irrelevant. irrelevant to this case.

2nd part - Purpose??  Does it say the purpose somewhere or are you making that part up?  Duffy has a constituency, Prince Edward Island, and the Senate in Ottawa.  Why should he be the only one with 2 homes to receive no money for a second residence.  His duties are the same as the rest.  Would he have to have criminal intent to believe that he should be treated the same as 100 or so other senators that had residences outside Ottawa.  I can't see how a reasonable person would suspect he wouldn't be entitled to something almost all the other Senators receive.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Apr 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Why are senators aand MP's still having to provide receipts? Why aren't they on the same per diem as the rest of us.


It appears because if you want to spend more than your per diem (say, because your breakfast is too itsy bitsy, or because the juice alone costs more than the per diem), you have to file receipts to get the rest.



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> 2nd part - Purpose??  Does it say the purpose somewhere or are you making that part up?  Duffy has a constituency, Prince Edward Island, and the Senate in Ottawa.  Why should he be the only one with 2 homes to receive no money for a second residence.  His duties are the same as the rest.


I think the question is more about which place is "home" (according to the "Senators' Travel Policy", " “Primary residence” means the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator." - where he's supposed to _live_ ) and his office in Ottawa, where he's entitled to travel allowances because he's away from his "home".  In Duffy's case, if he doesn't have what appears to be a real "home" in PEI, he can't claim to be the Senator for there, and if his home really _is_ Ottawa, he shouldn't be claiming travel expenses to live there - *subject to what the courts determine, of course.*


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I think the question is more about which place is "home" (according to the "Senators' Travel Policy", " “Primary residence” means the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator." - where he's supposed to _live_ ) and his office in Ottawa, where he's entitled to travel allowances because he's away from his "home".  In Duffy's case, if he doesn't have what appears to be a real "home" in PEI, he can't claim to be the Senator for there, and if his home really _is_ Ottawa, he shouldn't be claiming travel expenses to live there - *subject to what the courts determine, of course.*



“Primary residence” means the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator."

Are you making up stuff?  He self identified his "primary residence" as in PEI.  We don't have to go looking any further for a definition, nor should we.  If he made a good faith reliance on the rules, there is no crime.   Witch hunt caused by Marjory LaBreton's dithering as Government Leader in the Senate.


----------



## FSTO (7 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It appears because if you want to spend more than your per diem (say, because your breakfast is too itsy bitsy, or because the juice alone costs more than the per diem), you have to file receipts to get the rest.



Good gravy, then they are  just asking to be hung out to dry. Cheap bastards, its not like they are hurting for money.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Apr 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> “Primary residence” means the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator."
> 
> *Are you making up stuff? *


I cut/pasted the quote from the "Senators' Travel Policy" (35 page PDF) - a link I shared with the quote.  </sarcasm>So yeah, I made up a document with wild-ass definitions, converted it to PDF and had it posted to the Parliament of Canada web page, all from my basement in my gym shorts and t-shirt, just to prove my point on this forum - pretty slick, no? </sarcasm>



> If he made a good faith reliance on the rules, there is no crime.


And, after one side told him he was OK, and another said he wasn't, we'll see what the courts have to say about it, won't we?



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Good gravy, then they are  just asking to be hung out to dry. Cheap bastards, its not like they are hurting for money.


That's my biggest beef, too - the entitlement (no matter what party they're from).


----------



## cupper (7 Apr 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> “Primary residence” means the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator."
> 
> Are you making up stuff?  He self identified his "primary residence" as in PEI.  We don't have to go looking any further for a definition, nor should we.  If he made a good faith reliance on the rules, there is no crime.   Witch hunt caused by Marjory LaBreton's dithering as Government Leader in the Senate.



Two points:

First, just because HE "self identifies" that is his primary residence is not enough. There are clearly defined requirements that must be met to meet the definition of a primary residence. One could claim an undeveloped acre of woodlot with a 10'x10' shack and an outhouse as a primary residence. Unless he spends the minimum required amount of time residing in said shack, maintaining said shack, paying taxes on said shack, it is not a primary residence. Shack yes. Home, no.

When a cop asks you for proof of insurance when he pulls you over for a traffic stop, he should just accept your statement that you have it? When you identify the car as borrowed from a friend, he just simply takes your word that you have permission to drive it. In both cases I would suspect if you could not furnish either, you butt would be in the back of the squad car faster than you could say "WTF?"

Second, there are plenty of people who have found themselves in legal hot water making a good faith reliance on their understanding of the rules. Ignorance is not a defense.

If Duffy's residency is in question, and he received payment for travel expenses to and from said residence, (regardless of the question of status as senator that this raises as well) and it turns out the residency requirements are not met, he is on the hook for the expenses paid. If it is further proven that he knew that he didn't meet the residency requirements, then that is a criminal act.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Apr 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 
> First, just because HE "self identifies" that is his primary residence is not enough.



Yes it is.  You're making stuff up.



> When a cop asks you for proof of insurance when he pulls you over for a traffic stop, he should just accept your statement that you have it? When you identify the car as borrowed from a friend, he just simply takes your word that you have permission to drive it. In both cases I would suspect if you could not furnish either, you butt would be in the back of the squad car faster than you could say "WTF?"



That's why the text of Traffic Acts require a proof of insurance card.



> Second, there are plenty of people who have found themselves in legal hot water making a good faith reliance on their understanding of the rules. Ignorance is not a defense.



Actually, yes it is.  These charges require mens rea, a guilty mind, for a conviction.



> If Duffy's residency is in question, and he received payment for travel expenses to and from said residence, (regardless of the question of status as senator that this raises as well) and it turns out the residency requirements are not met, he is on the hook for the expenses paid. If it is further proven that he knew that he didn't meet the residency requirements, then that is a criminal act.



I guess he didn't know he was on Double Secret Probation.  The only laws he has to follow are the written ones.


----------



## Tibbson (7 Apr 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Yes it is.  You're making stuff up.



Actually, he's not making it up.  From the Treasury Board website: Principal residence (résidence principale) - a single-family dwelling owned or rented and occupied by the employee or dependant residing with the employee and which is recorded as the employee's permanent address on the departmental or agency personnel file. Temporary or seasonal accommodation is excluded by this definition.



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Actually, yes it is.  These charges require mens rea, a guilty mind, for a conviction.



It is not necessary to prove the person actually knew something was wrong in order to prove the mens rea which refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the act someone committed.  In other words, did someone do something willingly as opposed to doing something by accident or an act with unintended consequences.  As a general rule, it all falls back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and there are plenty of examples in life where people have committed crimes and tried to claim they didn't know it was illegal or that they had taken steps to confirm they could do something and they were still found guilty.  What about the guy who checks his bank account to find an extra $100,000 in his savings account so he goes on a spending spree and then tries to claim it wasn't his fault the bank made a mistake?  One need not be told, or know, that something is wrong in order for the element of mens rea to be proved.


----------



## Remius (7 Apr 2015)

I'm pretty sure the senate does not fall under treasury board rules or definitions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2015)

Christ, we haven't even heard all the opening arguments and we have all kinds of conjecture and interpretations flying about.

Rocky Mountain, do you have a legal background? If not your OPINION means nothing more than anyone else's. Don't say people are wrong because you disagree with them.

We do have real lawyers here and I'm sure they'll chime in after hearing what they need to hear to form their own learned opinion.

It's too early to shut the thread down, so just cool your jets and at least wait for the defence to say their part. It's not fair to bung up the works right off the bat :argument:

---Staff---


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2015)

By Duffy chosing to go Judge alone, he is making shrewd decision.  I think that he will find wiggle room that a Jury wouldn't and I will be surprised if he get's hammered on all counts.  What I am really curious is to see what sort of brown stuff will stick on the PM and party as this plays out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the senate does not fall under treasury board rules or definitions.


Indeed ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I cut/pasted the quote from the "Senators' Travel Policy" (35 page PDF).


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It appears because if you want to spend more than your per diem (say, because your breakfast is too itsy bitsy, or because the juice alone costs more than the per diem), you have to file receipts to get the rest.



Actually, no. My orderly room clerk would just say "too bad" and pay out the Per Diem. The _only_ way I could get reimbursed for more than the Per Diem would be a lengthy justification process demonstrating that there were no reasonable alternatives, or if I were staying in some recognized place like the Yukon, where the Per Diem amounts are adjusted to reflect the different costs of living.

It is actually the other way around; if I am inside the local area, I have to provide receipts to be reimbursed _at all_, since the Per Diem kicks in only when you are out of the local area (however that is defined).

Transportation has become something of a nightmare, since they do involved cost comparisons then issue tickets (which are often for really wierd times, transfers etc., making getting there something of an adventure), rather than doing the cost comparison and then allowing you to get from point a to b but only paying the lowest cost price; if you want to go by limosine then fill your boots, you make up the difference.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Apr 2015)

I can't recall claiming travel without per diem kicking in and that system works pretty well. As for contracting out, we do that for travel and the results are not that great, I still remember that stinking mess that was Ryder travel and swear they must have been doing kickbacks to the Libs in order to keep that contract with their abuse suching as trying to book me on a $2,000 flight when we found a $400 seat on the same plane. American Express worked quite well with minimal fuss, BMO certainly got off to a rocky start and still are not as efficient as AE was.

The problem for the Senate is really attitude, claim that which you were entitled to but not that which you were not. A wee bit of personal honour and morals go a long way in this sort of thing. What bothers me is that the Senators seem to fail to grasp the fundamental core principle of their task, which is to serve with honour and set an example.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 Apr 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Actually, he's not making it up.  From the Treasury Board website: Principal residence (résidence principale) - a single-family dwelling owned or rented and occupied by the employee or dependant residing with the employee and which is recorded as the employee's permanent address on the departmental or agency personnel file. Temporary or seasonal accommodation is excluded by this definition.



Do you have reason to believe that the Treasury Board has any authority over the Senate?  I don't.



> It is not necessary to prove the person actually knew something was wrong in order to prove the mens rea which refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the act someone committed.  In other words, did someone do something willingly as opposed to doing something by accident or an act with unintended consequences.  As a general rule, it all falls back to "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and there are plenty of examples in life where people have committed crimes and tried to claim they didn't know it was illegal or that they had taken steps to confirm they could do something and they were still found guilty.  What about the guy who checks his bank account to find an extra $100,000 in his savings account so he goes on a spending spree and then tries to claim it wasn't his fault the bank made a mistake?  One need not be told, or know, that something is wrong in order for the element of mens rea to be proved.



The guy with $100,000 in his bank knows exactly what he is doing.  A senator that reads the rules that appear to be straight forward but doesn't know about the double secret probation and takes the same allowance as 100 other senators, might be doing it totally innocently. 

Me - Legal background - no.  An education background in government - sure.  I am not necessarily a Duffy cheerleader and he may very well be convicted on some charges but I think this is a case of throwing a shovel of stuff against the barn door and seeing what sticks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Do you have reason to believe that the Treasury Board has any authority over the Senate?  I don't.


I wonder what the rules the Senators follow have to say about definitions like where someone lives and how much they can claim for living in Ottawa if they don't live there, and when?  I guess without clicking on the link, we'll just never know ....



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The guy with $100,000 in his bank knows exactly what he is doing.  A senator that reads the rules that appear to be straight forward but doesn't know about the double secret probation and takes the same allowance as 100 other senators, might be doing it totally innocently.


Ever hear the one about ignorance of the law not being an excuse?  If it is, it goes to sentence, not guilt/innocence.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2015)

So where's the coverage on Mac Harb? Duffy's sums seem to pale in comparison to the $231000 Mr Harb is alleged to have defrauded the senate.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So where's the coverage on Mac Harb? Duffy's sums seem to pale in comparison to the $231000 Mr Harb is alleged to have defrauded the senate.



Something about which party affiliation the different senators have behind their name drives coverage....


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So where's the coverage on Mac Harb? Duffy's sums seem to pale in comparison to the $231000 Mr Harb is alleged to have defrauded the senate.


Still making its way through the justice sausage machine ....


> .... Former Liberal Senator Mac Harb, who resigned from the Senate and repaid more than $200,000 in impugned expense claims, which also centred on his principal residency claims, has also been charged ....


----------



## cupper (8 Apr 2015)

From the Deloitte report that started the whole ball rolling:



> *5.2. Considerations of Primary Residency*
> The only definition of primary residency in the material we reviewed is found in the Senators’ Travel Policy which came into force on June 5, 2012. It is defined therein as:
> 
> “the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator”
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Apr 2015)

The judge in Duffy's case is wondering whether the Senate actually had rules relating to Senator's expenses.  



> Neubauer said he was trying to show that before 2012, there were clear rules in place about what constituted a Senate expense, despite the fact that an updated rule book put out that year added more explicit guidelines than had existed previously.
> 
> "That's the whole point, were there any rules at all?" Vaillancourt said. "And at the end of the day, I hope you have something more substantial than what appears on the platter right now."
> 
> ...



https://ca.news.yahoo.com/senate-officials-rejected-duffy-makeup-claim-080013557.html

Looks like the prosecutor is worrying about his case.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Apr 2015)

I can perfectly relate to the judge's frustration … and I would be worried if I were the prosecutor and all I had as evidence of the "rules" was the testimony of someone in charge of approving or not the claims. If there are specific rules, the prosecutor should be able to simply table them. Otherwise, if the "rules" are merely the discretionary interpretation of totally unclear general statements by the official being examined before the judge, I can see the judge saying: well , if the Senate cannot adopt actual rules, why should I be the one making them up here and now, and then deciding _ex-post facto_ that  the Senator before me broke them (before I even "stated" them).


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Apr 2015)

I suspect why over 40 Senators were caught under the "rules" is that there were quite deliberately no written rules.  I suspect the slush fund contract that Duffy had operated exactly as the Senators, at some point in time, intended.  Do I think that over 40 Senators were thieves. No.  I think that the Senate decided to clean up the rules in 2012 and then started to retroactively apply the new rules.  Marjory LaBreton, the leader in the Senate at the time, was so naive that she didn't see the coming train wreck.  As an interested but unconnected party member, I emailed Harper 3 times suggesting that the situation be brought under control, but it wasn't.  Then the Senators called in the Auditor General and the RCMP and the situation went careening out of control.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2015)

One thing I have noticed in my career is that business people have great difficulty making the leap to government culture. In business it's quite common to buy lunches, dinners, tickets to events to people you wish to do business with and then have an accountant sort it out at year end. In government that is verboten and for good reason. I have also noticed that journalists seem to have a difficult time grasping that once given access to the trough that some up and coming journalist is going to go after them just as they used to. they seem to think they are either to smart or they somehow get a "Get out of jail free card"


----------

