Senators' expenses

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

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 ....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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”

As previously mentioned, the regulations and guidelines applicable during the period of our examination do not include criteria for determining “primary residence”. As such, we are not able to assess the status of the primary residence declared by Senator Duffy against existing regulations and guidelines.

In order to establish primary residence for all Senators, the Standing Committee requested that Senators submit the following information:

1. Copy of driver’s license,
2. Copy of provincial health card,
3. Relevant information from personal income tax return providing provincial tax information, and
4. A signed statement indicating where they vote.

We understand that the Standing Committee agreed that if a senator met all four “indicators”, supported by travel documentation, they were deemed to have been interviewed and that no further work was completed as they were deemed to have met the primary residence test.

5.2.1. Senator Duffy’s Primary Residence “Indicators”

We have reviewed copies of the information provided by Senator Duffy, which we have summarized in the following table.

Examination of Senator Duffy’s Primary and Secondary Residence Status 13

Table 4: Senator Duffy’s Primary Residence “Indicators”
Indicator Met / Not Met
Driver’s license  - Met
Provincial Health Card - Not met – not address of declared primary residence
Income Tax Return - Not met – not address of declared primary residence
Signed Statement re: voting - Insufficient information provided to determine whether Senator Duffy is registered to vote in the same area as declared primary residence

Senator Duffy has not met two (2) of the four (4) indicators used by Steering Committee of the Internal Economy Committee to determine whether senators have met the primary residence test.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

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."

The remark prompted Neubauer to question whether the judge has already made up his mind in the case.

"I've got a long way to go before the determination of facts," Vaillancourt replied.

"But I would like to start moving along and hearing some evidence."

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

Looks like the prosecutor is worrying about his case.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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]

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]

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"