Senators' expenses

[cupper]

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]

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]

Oh no you didn't!

Ooooooh Yes I Did!

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

 

[Jed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

“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?

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]

“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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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]

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]

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

Indeed ....

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