Overview

What we found

1. We found that the oversight, accountability, and transparency of Senators’ expenses was quite simply not adequate. We have identified opportunities for improvement, and these are outlined in the report.

2. We also found that Senators did not always consider the requirement to ensure that expenses funded through the public purse were justifiable, reasonable, and appropriate. We have noted areas where Senators could make decisions that would be more economical for taxpayers.

3. While we have not provided individual reports for 86 Senators and former Senators, we found that the other 30 that we examined

incurred expenses that we determined were not in accordance with the applicable Senate rules, policies, or guidelines;

made claims that were not for parliamentary business (Exhibit 1); or

(Exhibit 1); or incurred expenses for which there was such a pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were prevented from reaching an audit opinion.

4. We have provided an individual report on each of these 30 Senators and former Senators in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.

5. We have recommended to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration that the nine cases reported in Appendix A be immediately referred to other authorities, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for investigation.

6. We have also recommended that the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration consider the 21 cases reported in Appendix B to determine whether further action should be taken in those cases.

What needs to happen

7. The weaknesses and problems uncovered in the course of this comprehensive audit of Senators’ expenses call for a transformational change in the way expenses are claimed, managed, controlled, and reviewed.

8. Simply changing or adding to existing rules will not be enough. Improvements in oversight, accountability, transparency, and Senators’ consideration for the cost to taxpayers are needed to resolve the issues that we have identified.

What we examined

9. The objective of our audit was to determine whether Senators’ expenses and other transactions have been properly controlled and incurred for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public funds (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1—Definitions of terms used in this report Parliamentary business—For the purposes of this report, it includes parliamentary functions, public business, or official business, as defined below. Parliamentary functions—“[D]uties and activities related to the position of senator, wherever performed, and includes public and official business and partisan matters, but does not include activities related to a. the election of a member of the House of Commons during an election under the Canada Elections Act, or b. the private business interests of a senator or a member of a senator’s family or household.” Public business—“[A]ll business carried on by a senator for public purposes, whether or not authorized by the Senate or the Government of Canada, and includes official business, representative business, partisan business and related travel, but does not include attending to one’s private concerns.” Official business—“[P]ublic business that has been authorized by the Senate or a committee of the Senate or requested in writing by a Minister of the Crown.” Source: Senate Administrative Rules Due regard—Good judgment to ensure the prudent use of resources, with particular consideration of the cost to taxpayers. Source: Adapted from the Senate Administrative Rules

10. As requested by the Senate of Canada, this audit has been comprehensive. With the exception of salaries paid to Senators, our audit examined all expenses incurred by 116 Senators and former Senators between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2013, including travel and other expenses incurred by Senators while participating in activities for committees, associations, and interparliamentary groups. This involved examining more than 80,000 expense items.

11. We assessed whether expenses incurred by Senators were in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines in effect during the audit period. We looked for all available information and details to support expenses incurred by Senators. In particular, we examined whether the expenses incurred were for the conduct of parliamentary business. We also reviewed each transaction to determine whether the Senators had considered the cost to taxpayers when spending public funds. Finally, we examined the financial and human resource management practices of each Senator, to determine whether these practices provided proper control over the use of public funds.

12. In planning our audit, we considered the audit reports prepared by Deloitte LLP on the expenses of Senator Michael Duffy and Senator Pamela Wallin. In its report, dated 13 August 2013, the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the Internal Economy Committee) agreed with Deloitte’s assessments contained in the audit report on Senator Wallin’s expenses. The Internal Economy Committee also acknowledged that Deloitte’s application of the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines to the claims in question was fair.

13. On the interpretation of the Senators’ Travel Policy, which had been changed in June 2012, in sections 3.7 and 4.3 of its report, Deloitte stated:

Although, as indicated above, several changes were made to the underlying policies and guidelines governing Senators’ travel in the Review Period, the overall principles of the policy did not change; ie., that travel costs would be reimbursed if the purpose of travel was to carry out the Senator’s parliamentary functions. . . . . . . The Travel Policy, including Appendix A which provides examples of travel purposes that would and would not be funded by the Senate, was effective as of June 5, 2012. We understand this to have provided specific examples of the application of the existing policies, and have used this as a guide when assessing Senator Wallin’s travel claims throughout the period of our review.

14. Though the Internal Economy Committee agreed with Deloitte’s approach, we have noted differing views among Senators about the effect of the June 2012 Senators’ Travel Policy. While some Senators agreed with Deloitte’s interpretation, others expressed the view that the June 2012 Senators’ Travel Policy changed the requirements that applied to them.

15. In conducting our audit, we were guided by the overarching principles expressed in the Senate Administrative Rules:

Senate resources shall be used for the service of Canada, and in particular, for the parliamentary functions of Senators and the service of the Senate. Every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use.

16. In our view, these overarching principles governing Senate expenses were unchanged during the audit period.

17. We have also been mindful of the varied nature of the work and activities performed by Senators. We have spent considerable time gaining an understanding of the approaches taken by Senators to perform their parliamentary duties and functions. We have considered the views and perspectives of Senators and former Senators, in light of the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, and we exercised our professional judgment in determining whether their expenses were incurred for parliamentary business. The fundamental principle that guided our work was that public funds should not be used to pay for personal or private activities.

18. More details on the audit objectives, scope, approach, criteria, and the names of the 116 Senators whose expenses we audited, are in About the Audit.

Why we did this audit

19. In June 2012, we reported the results of a performance audit of the Senate Administration. We concluded that, while the Senate Administration reviewed and authorized transactions, improvements were needed so that documentation would be sufficient to demonstrate that the transactions were for parliamentary business. In that audit, we did not examine individual expenses incurred and claimed by Senators.

20. Throughout late 2012 and early 2013, questions arose about the living expenses incurred by Senators Patrick Brazeau, Michael Duffy, and Mac Harb, and about travel expenses claimed by Senator Pamela Wallin.

21. On 4 June 2013, the Leader of the Government in the Senate presented a motion in the Senate, requesting that the Auditor General of Canada conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses, including Senators’ expenses. On 6 June 2013, the Senate adopted that motion. The Auditor General accepted the Senate’s request on 7 June 2013.

Introduction

Roles of Senators

22. The Senate of Canada is composed of up to 105 members. All regions of Canada are represented equally in the Senate, and each province is represented by a set number of Senators, irrespective of that province’s population. This guarantees that minority regions have a voice and can assert their rights and interests within the Parliament of Canada.

23. As the Supreme Court of Canada has recently stated, over time the Senate has come to represent various groups that were underrepresented in the House of Commons. It serves as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process.

24. Some Senators are appointed as political officers and hold leadership positions within the Senate. These are

the Speaker of the Senate,

the Speaker pro tempore (the acting Speaker who presides in the absence of the Speaker),

the Leader of the Government,

the Leader of the Opposition,

the Deputy Leader of the Government,

the Deputy Leader of the Opposition,

party whips, and

deputy party whips.

25. A Senator remains a Senator whether or not Parliament is in session, prorogued, or dissolved. Senators’ parliamentary functions may include

Attending Senate sessions. Senators debate bills passed by the House of Commons, and can also draft and introduce government and private members’ bills to the Senate. For bills to become law, they must be passed by the Senate and the House of Commons, before they receive Royal Assent.

Senators debate bills passed by the House of Commons, and can also draft and introduce government and private members’ bills to the Senate. For bills to become law, they must be passed by the Senate and the House of Commons, before they receive Royal Assent. Sitting on committees and subcommittees. Bills undergo detailed study in committee, where members may recommend amendments. Committees also conduct in-depth studies, and Senators may travel to obtain information or evidence on numerous subjects, such as agriculture, forestry, and human rights.

Bills undergo detailed study in committee, where members may recommend amendments. Committees also conduct in-depth studies, and Senators may travel to obtain information or evidence on numerous subjects, such as agriculture, forestry, and human rights. Representing the provinces, regions, or territories for which they were appointed. Senators are expected to remain members of their communities and regions and to continue activities in those communities and regions while serving the public interest and those they represent.

Senators are expected to remain members of their communities and regions and to continue activities in those communities and regions while serving the public interest and those they represent. Playing partisan roles. Senators usually belong to political parties and play partisan roles. As part of their partisan roles, Senators may be members of their parties’ caucuses. They may also be members of regional caucuses.

Senators usually belong to political parties and play partisan roles. As part of their partisan roles, Senators may be members of their parties’ caucuses. They may also be members of regional caucuses. Belonging to like-minded groups of Senators. Senators may belong to groups that promote areas of public interest, such as human rights or the Canadian Armed Forces. Their activities may include travel with other Senators or other parliamentarians.

Senators may belong to groups that promote areas of public interest, such as human rights or the Canadian Armed Forces. Their activities may include travel with other Senators or other parliamentarians. Promoting other causes and activities. Senators may also promote other interests of Canadians that extend beyond the provinces, regions, or territories for which they were appointed. These interests could include public interest issues, such as mental health or programs for Canadians with disabilities.

Senators may also promote other interests of Canadians that extend beyond the provinces, regions, or territories for which they were appointed. These interests could include public interest issues, such as mental health or programs for Canadians with disabilities. Belonging to associations and interparliamentary groups. Senators may belong to groups that support ongoing parliamentary relations with other countries. Senators’ activities include attending meetings, planning conferences, and occasionally travelling with other Senators or other parliamentarians.

26. Senators may also engage in activities outside their parliamentary duties and functions. These activities include being employed, carrying on private business interests, or sitting on boards of directors of other organizations. These activities are permitted, provided that they do not violate any provisions of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and are declared to the Senate Ethics Officer.

Senate financial management framework

27. The Senate’s financial management framework has four components:

The Parliament of Canada Act sets the salaries, allowances, and types of expenses that can be paid to Senators. It also authorizes the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the Internal Economy Committee) to establish annual budgets and rules on expenditures.

The Senate Administrative Rules are established by the Senate. They codify the fundamental principles and rules for the internal administration of the Senate and its allocation and use of resources.

The Senate Administrative Rules are supplemented by policies, guidelines, forms, and practices adopted or implemented by the Senate, the Internal Economy Committee, or the Clerk of the Senate. For example, the Senators’ Travel Policy sets out the rules, practices, roles, and responsibilities governing the use of Senate resources for travel. Other guidance deals with hospitality expenses for both the Senate Administration and Senators, and with living expenses for Senators.

The Internal Economy Committee has the exclusive authority to determine whether any use of any funds, goods, services, or premises by a Senator is or was proper. The Committee may issue a decision when a Senator or the Senate Administration requests guidance or clarification on an existing rule or policy, or a specific expense claim. The decision may modify the existing rule or policy, and the decision may be made public.

28. The Senate Administrative Rules state that Senate resources shall be used for Senators’ parliamentary functions and for the service of the Senate. The Senate Administrative Rules also state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. When submitting claims for reimbursement, in most cases, Senators are expected to sign expense claim forms attesting that expenditures were incurred in carrying out their parliamentary functions. Senators are required to provide supporting documentation for travel claims. Documentation must also accompany hospitality and living expense claims. Senators may claim reimbursement for expenses incurred in relation to meetings or small items as part of their parliamentary functions. They must keep records or log details regarding their hospitality events, attendees of those events, and recipients of gifts with a value greater than $50, but they do not have to provide these details to the Senate Administration.

29. A fundamental objective of the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines is to ensure that Senators are not out of pocket for expenses incurred in fulfilling their duties and functions, while ensuring that these expenses are justifiable, appropriate, reasonable, and well managed.

30. The Senate Administration advises Senators on matters related to financial policies, procedures, processes, and the acquisition of goods and services. It also processes invoices and reimbursement claims, and supplies information to the Internal Economy Committee about financial performance and trends that may indicate a need for changes to the financial management framework.

Budgets

31. The budget for the operations of the Senate of Canada for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 fiscal years was approximately $94 million and $92 million, respectively.

32. Each Senator is responsible for managing his or her own office. Senators may not allocate, use, or authorize the use of Senate resources except to carry out parliamentary business. Each Senator is allocated a salary and an office budget (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2—Salaries and office budgets of non-officer Senators Funding allocations 2011–12 2012–13 Salary (taxable) $132,300 $135,200 Office budget (including staff salaries, office expenses, and hospitality) $153,120 $161,200 Note: Within the office budget for each Senator, allowable hospitality expenses were limited to $5,000 in the 2011–12 fiscal year and to $3,000 in the 2012–13 fiscal year. Source: The Senate of Canada

33. The Senate officers identified in paragraph 24 receive additional amounts to cover expenses related to their particular responsibilities. These amounts include staff salaries, research assistance, and office and hospitality expenses.

34. In addition to each Senator’s office budget, the Senate Administration issues payments directly for specific expenses, including the Senator’s regular travel to Ottawa, and certain telecommunications expenses. These matters are discussed in paragraphs 58 to 71.

Findings and Recommendations

Oversight of Senators’ expenses

Senators govern themselves with limited independent oversight

What we found

35. We found a lack of independent oversight in the way Senators’ expenses are governed.

Lack of independent oversight

36. As a group, Senators are responsible for governing themselves and how the Senate functions. They design their own rules, choose whether to enforce those rules, and determine what, if any, information will be publicly disclosed.

37. The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (Internal Economy Committee) is responsible for ensuring that the Senate’s resources are managed appropriately and that its assets are protected. However, the Committee is made up of Senators who also claim expenses as individual Senators.

38. Under the Parliament of Canada Act, the Internal Economy Committee has exclusive authority to act on, and has full discretion over, all of the Senate’s financial and administrative matters, including those of individual Senators, and its premises, services, and staff. The Committee, among other things

reviews and authorizes budgets of the Senate Administration and Senate committees, and

sets policies and guidelines on items such as Senators’ travel and research expenditures.

39. The Internal Economy Committee may issue a decision when a Senator or the Senate Administration requests guidance or clarification. Its decisions in such cases may modify the application of an existing rule or policy.

40. The Internal Economy Committee also decides on questions or actions of individual Senators about their expense claims. The Committee may decide to allow reimbursement to a Senator after the expense claim has been rejected by the Senate Administration. The Senate Administration may have rejected the claim for reimbursement on the grounds that it was not for parliamentary business or not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, or guidelines.

41. The Internal Economy Committee may also require repayment of amounts claimed by Senators that the Senate Administration had approved and that had been reimbursed.

Why this matters

42. A structure in which individuals set rules that apply to themselves, and have the authority to make final decisions about how those rules are applied, may give rise to a perceived lack of objectivity, as those individuals may be viewed as looking after their own interests.

43. Senators who sit on the Internal Economy Committee also make expense claims as individual Senators. Because the decisions they make may apply to their own expense claims, the Senators who sit on the Committee may be perceived as unable to make independent and impartial decisions.

Importance of independent audit

44. The Senate has both internal and external auditors. We found that the internal auditor conducted a limited amount of verification of past transactions involving Senators’ expenses. In our 2012 audit report, we stated that there was an opportunity for the Senate’s internal audit function to introduce this type of work as part of its risk-based audit plan.

45. In January 2015, an interim reorganization of the Senate Administration changed the reporting structure of the Senate’s internal auditor. The internal auditor previously reported to the Clerk of the Senate, but now reports to the Chief Corporate Services Officer. Reports prepared by the internal auditor may pertain to areas under the responsibility of the Chief Corporate Services Officer, and may affect matters that relate to individual Senators, including those sitting on the Internal Economy Committee. As the internal auditor does not have access to an independent oversight body, we are of the view that the internal auditor is unable to be an independent voice.

46. An independent accounting firm has also conducted annual audits of the Senate’s financial statements. These external audits are designed to determine whether the Senate’s financial statements were fairly presented. They are not designed to probe whether the expenses incurred by individual Senators are in accordance with applicable rules, policies, and guidelines and whether Senators considered the cost to taxpayers when spending public funds. It is our view that the Senate should ensure that regular, independent compliance audits of expenses incurred by Senators be conducted.

Why this matters

47. In many organizations, an internal audit function performs independent verification. In other organizations, a similar role may be undertaken by the organization’s external auditor. In both cases, the auditor must have a clear and unambiguous mandate and unrestricted access to all information needed to reach audit conclusions.

48. Independent audits that examine whether Senators’ expenses have complied with Senate rules, policies, and guidelines would be an important component of a rigorous oversight framework. Results of these audits could be used to identify potential improvements and to enhance transparency when they are made public.

49. Regular independent audits of expenses incurred by Senators would promote diligence and discipline from all individuals who are responsible for the spending of public funds, encourage continuous improvement in financial management, and support the early identification of issues that need further attention.

50. Our report on all Senators’ expenses has established a baseline by providing the Senate with a clear position from which to take action. Future audits of expenses incurred by Senators could be performed on a sample of Senators and their expenses.

Recommendations

51. The Senate of Canada should review the mandate and structure of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, as well as the reporting relationship of the internal auditor, with the objective of creating independent oversight of Senators’ expenses.

52. The oversight of Senators’ expenses should be performed by a body (the “oversight body”), the majority of whose membership, including its chair, is independent of the Senate. The members of this oversight body should be selected so that their collective skills, knowledge, and experience enable the oversight body to carry out its duties thoroughly and efficiently.

53. The mandate of the oversight body should include

a role of contributing to the development and interpretation of rules, policies, and guidelines that apply to the expenses of Senators;

the authority to review expenses incurred by individual Senators and all relevant documentation;

the authority to make final decisions on whether those expenses comply with the rules, policies, and guidelines, and whether amounts should be repaid by Senators; and

the exclusive authority to hire and terminate the Senate’s internal auditor, and to approve the terms of reference and mandate of the internal auditor.

54. The meetings of the oversight body should be open to the public, and all its reports, minutes, decisions, and reasons should be published on the Senate’s website.

55. The oversight body should have direct access to the Senate’s internal and external auditors. The auditors should present their internal and external audit plans and reports to the oversight body and those plans and reports should be made public on the Senate’s website. These plans should include a regular compliance element involving an examination of whether the expenses incurred by an appropriate sample of individual Senators are in accordance with the applicable rules, policies, and guidelines.

56. The oversight body should have the power to request that internal or external audits be performed on any matter within the authority conferred upon it.

57. The Auditor General of Canada should be given a clear mandate as the external auditor to conduct audits of the Senate of Canada, including audits of Senators’ expenses. The Auditor General should have unrestricted access to all information needed to reach audit conclusions on the expenses incurred by Senators, including information in the possession of individual Senators.

Control framework for Senators’ expenses

Senators often did not prioritize consideration of the cost to taxpayers

What we found

58. We found that some Senators were often mindful of the cost of their activities to taxpayers. For example, we found that some Senators clearly separated their personal activities from their parliamentary business and ensured that the Senate was not charged for expenses related to their personal activities. Some other Senators chose not to charge certain expenses that would have been eligible under the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, even though they had personally incurred the expenses.

Per diem—A daily allowance for Senators, based on Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat rates and adopted by the Internal Economy Committee, for meals and incidental expenses incurred when Senators are on travel status.

59. However, we also found many occasions where Senators’ choices could have been less costly, particularly in relation to travel, per diems, and telecommunications. For example, in our view, the Senate could have saved almost $400,000 during the period covered by this audit by addressing the concerns that we raise below relating to per diems, telecommunications, and holiday greeting cards.

60. Given individual Senators’ differing views and approaches in relation to the expenses that they incur, including the cases in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report, we are concerned that Senators did not always consider the requirement to ensure that expenses funded through the public purse were justifiable, appropriate, and reasonable.

Travel

Travel point system—A point system used by the Senate to govern reimbursement of Senators’ travel claims. Each Senator receives 64 points for travel per fiscal year for parliamentary business. If all 64 points are used in the fiscal year, any further travel expenses incurred are not reimbursed. The Senator may use the points or allocate them to a designated traveller (usually the Senator’s spouse) and/or to alternates (a dependent child, a staff member, or an employee or contractor of the Senate or the Senator). Points are used for each trip taken by the Senator, alternate, or designated traveller, subject to other limits on travel imposed by Senate rules, policies, or guidelines. The number of points used depends on factors such as destination, duration, and mode of transportation. For example, one point is used for every return trip between the Senator’s home region and the National Capital Region. The 64-point system does not include travel for Senate committee or parliamentary association meetings.

61. Each Senator receives an allotment of 64 travel points per fiscal year for parliamentary business. Travel points can be used for travel within Canada, to New York (for United Nations-related matters only), to Washington, DC , and for one international trip that is preapproved by the Internal Economy Committee. Expenses incurred for travel using the points are not charged to the Senator’s office budget. Once a Senator has used up his or her annual 64 points, he or she cannot claim reimbursement for any additional travel expenses incurred. Unused travel points are not carried over from year to year.

62. The system provides all Senators with the same access to travel, regardless of the distances from their homes to Ottawa, and supports reunification of Senators with their families. Senators whose primary residence is in the National Capital Region do not have to travel to attend Senate sittings, as these are primarily held in Ottawa. Those Senators can therefore use their travel points for other trips.

63. We found that the costs of travel undertaken by Senators using their 64 points varied greatly, because the number of travel points charged to the Senator is the same for business and economy class travel. For example, some Senators chose to fly business class even on short flights between Ottawa and Toronto, while other Senators chose a more economical travel option, such as travelling in economy class. Senators may travel by train in business class at no cost to the Senate. Senators’ spouses and dependent children may also travel by train for free.

64. The expenses incurred for travel under the 64-point system are managed centrally by the Senate Administration, and not from the budgets allotted to Senators individually. As a result, the Senators’ office budgets are not affected by the costs that result from their travel decisions. Furthermore, there is no public disclosure of points used by individual Senators or by their alternate or designated travellers.

Per diems

Travel status—The status of a Senator when away from his or her primary residence and undertaking parliamentary duties and activities related to his or her position. While on travel status, Senators can claim expenses that include transportation costs, accommodations, and per diems.

65. Senators who are on travel status can claim a per diem allowance for meals and other incidental expenses. Furthermore, Senators who do not reside in the National Capital Region (NCR) are considered to be travelling when attending Senate sittings, and can claim the per diem allowance while in the NCR to conduct parliamentary business. Meals are sometimes provided to Senators at committee meetings, when they travel on planes or trains, or when they attend public events as part of their parliamentary business.

66. We found per diem meal allowances that had been claimed and paid to Senators when, on the basis of the information available, it appeared that a meal had been provided from another source.

67. When we asked Senators why they claimed a per diem meal allowance when it appeared that a meal had been made available, we received many responses, such as that

no food was left at the committee meeting when they arrived,

they were unable to eat before or at speaking engagements, or

it was not possible to get a reasonable meal on an airplane in Canada.

68. We are of the view that claiming these allowances when a meal was made available by a public or private source did not demonstrate consideration of the cost to taxpayers.

Other expenses

69. We found that some Senators and their staff members incurred significant roaming charges on their mobile communication devices. These charges can accumulate quickly when travelling outside the country, yet they can easily be managed by planning in advance and taking steps such as obtaining a cellular plan that minimizes these costs.

70. The Senate has standard holiday greeting cards that Senators may use. A number of Senators chose to purchase customized greeting cards at a higher cost. We found that, if all Senators used the Senate’s standard holiday greeting cards, the overall savings would have been at least $30,000.

71. In our view, the management of these types of expenses did not always demonstrate that Senators and their staff considered the cost to taxpayers when incurring these expenses.

Why this matters

72. Given that rules, policies, and guidelines cannot specifically address every situation that may arise, care must be exercised when spending public funds. By adopting a cautious approach, Senators can minimize costs to taxpayers while undertaking the activities that are necessary to perform their parliamentary business.

Recommendations

73. Senators should collectively determine a core set of principles that weigh the cost to taxpayers against the expenditures necessary to conduct parliamentary business. The Senate of Canada should ensure that the applicable rules, policies, and guidelines comply with those principles, and that transactions of Senators reflect the application of those principles.

74. The Senate should enhance the training and guidance provided to all Senators and their staff to ensure that there is a consistent understanding and application of the principles and the rules, policies, and guidelines that are used to implement those principles.

75. The Senate should ensure that the Senate Administration is provided with the same training and guidance to ensure that its understanding and application of the principles, rules, policies, and guidelines support the Senators and their staff in the management of expenses.

76. The Senate should request that the Senate Administration prepare strategies and implementation plans to assist the Senate and individual Senators in reducing the cost to taxpayers of their future expenses.

Information provided by Senators to support expenses was often insufficient

What we found

77. We found that information provided by Senators to the Senate Administration in support of their expense claims, or the claims made by their staff, was often insufficient to determine whether the expenses incurred were for parliamentary business. Senators commonly declared that the purpose of their travel was “parliamentary business” or “Senate business,” with no other details provided.

Insufficient documentation provided with expense claims

78. As stated in paragraph 28, every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. For example, Senators are required to keep records or to log details to support their hospitality expenses and expenses for gifts that have a value greater than $50. This information is not always made available to the Senate Administration.

79. In our 2012 report, we found that some expense claim files maintained by the Senate Administration did not contain sufficient detail to explain the intended purposes of the transactions. As we explained in our report at the time, without sufficient documentation it is difficult for the Senate Administration to clearly determine whether expenses were appropriate.

80. In our current audit, we found that in many cases Senators did not maintain records to document the parliamentary business that they conducted while spending public funds. For example, we found that some Senators did not maintain a paper or electronic calendar that could be used to identify the purpose of their travel, length of stay, and details about the activities that they conducted. In cases where such records were maintained, they were not regularly made available to the Senate Administration when the expense claim was submitted for reimbursement.

81. We also found that many Senators did not keep records to support claims for travel within their regions. Senators can claim reimbursement for such travel, including, for example, mileage. However, without documentation to support the claims, it was difficult for us to determine whether parliamentary business had been conducted. In auditing these particular claims, we considered all the evidence available to us, and our understanding of the nature of the work of the Senator, to determine whether the expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business.

82. Where documentation practices were poor, we looked beyond the information provided with the expense claims to determine whether the expenses incurred were appropriate. We sought additional evidence from Senators, including explanations as to why a particular expense was for parliamentary business. We also sought independent evidence of Senators’ attendance at certain events. Finally, we reviewed any trends associated with their expenses to assist in determining whether particular expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business.

83. Notwithstanding the information that was available to us, it was often difficult to identify whether the expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business or for unrelated purposes. As illustrated by the reports on individual Senators and former Senators in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report, we found that many expenses were incurred for activities that could not reasonably be viewed as parliamentary business. In a few cases, in Appendix A of this report, we determined that it was not possible to reach an audit conclusion.

Insufficient documentation to support contract payments

84. In our 2012 audit report, we found that the Senate Administration had directives, a contracting policy, and a control framework in place to assist Senators in the procurement of goods and most services. We also noted, however, varying practices in the use of a formal contract, documentation supporting the contract, and the evaluation of the services rendered.

85. In this audit, we found that some Senators were unable to provide documentation to show that they had received services from contractors who had been paid for their work. For example, some Senators did not have evidence of the work performed by the contractors, such as reports, correspondence, or time sheets. As a result, in conducting this audit, we had to perform additional audit procedures, including having many detailed discussions with Senators, in order to understand the nature and reasonableness of the services provided and to determine whether the expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business.

86. We also found cases where Senators had made payments to contractors for services that were outside the scope of the contract, or for services rendered before a formal contract had been put in place.

87. In cases where the results of our additional procedures failed to produce sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support whether the expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, we reported our audit findings in the individual reports of Senators and former Senators in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.

Why this matters

88. The failure to maintain proper documentation to support the use of public funds makes it difficult for Senators to demonstrate that they have followed rules that apply to expenses they have incurred or public funds they have disbursed. This can be achieved through accurate and timely contract documentation, including clear work requirements and evidence that the work has been performed. Furthermore, having formal contracts in place before work is performed ensures that all parties have a clear understanding of their responsibilities under the contract before any work is undertaken.

89. Proper documentation also allows those responsible for reviewing and approving expenses and reimbursement claims to carry out their control function appropriately. This contributes to the credibility of individual Senators and of the Senate as an institution.

Recommendations

90. Senators should ensure that complete documentation and explanations are submitted to the Senate Administration to support their expense claims, including full descriptions of the parliamentary business conducted and evidence of any work performed by contractors.

91. All Senators should use the Senate electronic calendar, or a paper-based equivalent, to record all their activities, and these records should be archived on a regular basis. Notations for each item in the calendar should include a description of the activity, its connection to the Senator’s parliamentary business, whether any meals were provided, and any component of personal or private activities. The Senate Administration should be provided with access to the Senator’s electronic calendar, or copies of the Senator’s paper-based equivalent, for the purpose of processing expenses and reimbursement claims.

Disclosure of information by Senators

Public disclosure of Senators’ expenses did not provide sufficient detail to convey whether expenses were appropriate

What we found

92. We found that there was a lack of detail in the public disclosure of Senators’ expenses.

Lack of detail in public disclosure

93. We found that the information disclosed on the Senate website about Senators’ expenses did not provide sufficient detail on the nature and purpose of travel and hospitality expenses. For example, it was not possible to know, from this information, how many trips a Senator had taken in any given period, the number of travel points used, or the cost of each trip.

Why this matters

94. Transparency promotes trust, and would enable Canadians to better understand the expenses that are incurred by Senators and their staff. It would also help to demonstrate that public funds are being used appropriately, and that the cost to taxpayers is being considered when Senators undertake parliamentary business. Because Senators are not subject to the Access to Information Act, the public does not have a guaranteed right to receive information related to the expenses incurred by Senators and reimbursed from public funds.

95. Some Senators provide additional information on their individual websites. While this is a good practice, it is our view that it would be more effective for detailed information on expenses incurred by Senators to appear on the Senate website in a clear, consistent, and transparent format.

Recommendations

96. Senators should fully disclose their use of public funds. In this disclosure, they should provide information about their budgets and fully itemize and disclose all their individual expenses on the Senate’s website, in a format that is accessible, clear, and easy to navigate. At a minimum, these expenses would include living expenses, travel, hospitality, contracts, other amounts paid directly by the Senate of Canada and allocated to individual Senators, other office expenses, and any costs for their work with associations, committees, and exchanges. The disclosures should provide sufficient information at the level of individual transactions, including

the parliamentary purpose for all components of the expense;

the date the expense was incurred or the period covered by the expense;

whether any direct costs were incurred by the Senate as a result of personal activities, and the corresponding reimbursement;

in the case of travel claims, the names of the travellers and the number of travel points used;

a breakdown of the main components of the cost incurred (such as airfare, per diems, accommodations, and other transportation costs); and

whether any of the costs were recovered from third parties and the extent of the recovery.

97. The Senate Administrative Rules and Senate policies and guidelines should also be publicly available on the Senate’s website.

Disclosure by Senators of relationships or outside interests was insufficient to identify potential conflicts

What we found

98. We found that there was no requirement to disclose close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, of Senators or their staff pertaining to transactions that involved the use of public funds.

Lack of disclosure of close personal or business relationships, or outside interests

99. In addition to their parliamentary duties and functions, Senators may undertake employment, business, or other activities. Each year, Senators are required to disclose all of their outside interests to the Senate Ethics Officer.

100. However, we found that Senators were not required to disclose, at a transaction level, any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that they or their staff might have had in relation to their individual travel and hospitality expenses. Nor were they required to disclose close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, related to their rental of accommodations or office space. For example, when Senators submitted travel claims, they were not required to disclose whether they had undertaken any personal, business, or other activities during their travel.

101. Similarly, we found that Senators were not required to disclose any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that they or their staff might have had in relation to potential contractors or employees.

102. Senators were required to abide by a conflict of interest code, which sought to

maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of Senators and the Senate;

provide for greater certainty and guidance for Senators when dealing with issues that might have presented foreseeable real or apparent conflicts of interest; and

establish clear standards and a transparent system by which questions about proper conduct might have been addressed by an independent, non-partisan advisor.

Why this matters

103. Failure to disclose close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, can create the perception that Senators, their staff, or those close to them, could personally benefit from the use of public funds.

Recommendations

104. Senators should disclose to the Senate Administration any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that pertain to their individual travel and hospitality expenses. Senators should also disclose any relationships or outside interests when renting accommodations or office space from another party.

105. Senators should publicly disclose, on the Senate website, any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that they or their staff have with contractors they intend to engage using Senate funds.

106. Senators should publicly disclose, on the Senate website, any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests, that they or their staff have with potential employees that they intend to hire using Senate funds. Such disclosure would include connections such as close personal friends and family of other parliamentarians.

Findings specific to the Office of the Speaker of the Senate

The Speaker’s office lacked control and oversight

What we found

107. We found that there was a lack of financial management controls and oversight for certain expenditures incurred by the Office of the Speaker. The Speaker of the Senate during the period covered by our audit was the Honourable Noël Kinsella.

108. The financial management rules, policies, and guidelines that specifically applied to Senators did not apply to the Speaker’s office. While the Speaker and his staff had adopted some practices and procedures to promote transparency, accountability, and economy, there was a lack of formal rules, policies, or guidelines applying to the financial affairs of the Speaker’s office.

Controls, systems, and practices

109. Public funds need to be managed and handled prudently and economically. This requires the exercise of sound financial management and control; it also means that systems, practices, and resources should be in place to ensure that

assets are safeguarded;

resources are used effectively, efficiently, and economically;

accountabilities for financial management are clearly established and respected;

effective internal controls are established; and

the Canadian public is provided with pertinent and reliable information on the use of public funds.

110. The Speaker’s office had a budget of $544,900 for the 2011–12 fiscal year and $490,410 for the 2012–13 fiscal year. The Speaker’s budget was for expenses such as staff salaries, hospitality, and the Speaker’s car expenditures. The budget for the Speaker’s office is in addition to the budget that the Speaker receives as an individual Senator.

111. In addition to being a Senator, the Speaker of the Senate presides over the business of the Senate. The Speaker’s duties include ceremonial functions, such as receiving diplomats and representing the Senate or Canada at national and international events.

112. The former Speaker stated that his office had adequate financial management and controls and oversight in place, considering the size of his office. The former Speaker also stated that his office worked closely with the Senate Administration to ensure due regard for public funds.

113. Nonetheless, we found considerable weaknesses in certain financial management and control practices in several areas of the Speaker’s office. Several examples follow.

We found hospitality expenses that were incurred without purchase orders or contracts to define the terms of agreement.

We found that the same employee who ordered goods or services also signed for their delivery and was responsible for maintaining the inventory of the goods. This is inconsistent with sound financial control practices and, more specifically, it is inconsistent with the segregation of duties in the context of the procurement of goods.

The former Speaker stated that inventory items and other purchases were supported by invoices and payments. However, we found no evidence of an effective tracking mechanism for the inventory and use of alcohol for receptions and ceremonial events.

We found that no record was maintained of the recipients of gifts purchased from the Parliamentary Boutique.

We found that the former Speaker’s staff applied the former Speaker’s automated signature to travel claims, contract renewals, and approvals for staff vacation leave without sufficient evidence that the former Speaker had approved the use of his signature. The former Speaker stated that, before he authorized the use of his automated signature, letters or documents were sent to him by email, or read to him over the phone. In the absence of documentation showing the former Speaker’s authorization, either through an email or a formal delegation, there was no way to establish whether his automated signature was authorized each time it was used.

Why this matters

114. Significant deficiencies in financial management and control of the expenses of the Office of the Speaker could result in the improper use of public funds.

Recommendations

115. The Speaker of the Senate of Canada should ensure that the financial management practices of the Office of the Speaker are consistent with the rules, policies, and guidelines that apply to all other Senators, taking into consideration the additional responsibilities of the Speaker.

116. The Speaker should disclose all expenses incurred by the Office of the Speaker, on the Senate’s website, in a manner consistent with our recommendation regarding the disclosure of expenses of individual Senators.

Findings reported on individual Senators

What we found

117. We found that 30 Senators or former Senators

incurred expenses that we determined were not in accordance with the applicable Senate rules, policies, or guidelines;

made claims that were not for parliamentary business; or

incurred expenses for which there was such a pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were prevented from reaching an audit opinion.

118. We have provided an individual report on each of these Senators and former Senators in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.

Appendix A—Files recommended for referral to other authorities

Living expenses—Expenses allowed to Senators whose primary residence is more than 100 kilometres from the National Capital Region (NCR). They are reimbursed, to a maximum of $20,000 for the 2011–12 fiscal year and $22,000 for the 2012–13 fiscal year, for expenses incurred in the NCR for commercial accommodations (such as hotel or motel), rental accommodations, or having a privately owned secondary residence available to them in the NCR. Such Senators can also be reimbursed for commercial accommodations and per diems on weekends if parliamentary functions are performed while in the NCR. Primary residence—The residence declared by a Senator on a Senate document entitled “Declaration of Primary and Secondary Residences.” Senators are required to make their declarations annually, and to amend their declarations if there are any changes in the status of their residences. In 2013, in its Twenty-Third Report, the Internal Economy Committee stated that “[...] to claim living expenses in the National Capital Region, any residence owned or rented by a senator must be a secondary residence for use by the senator while in the NCR for Senate business. Your committee considers this language to be unambiguous; and plainly if a senator resides primarily in the NCR, he or she should not be claiming living expenses for the NCR.”

119. We found nine cases that should be immediately referred to other authorities, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because of one or both of the following:

The Senator or former Senator had made ineligible claims for living expenses incurred while in the National Capital Region and other travel expenses when we determined that the Senator or former Senator had not established a substantive presence at his or her declared primary residence . In some of these cases, we looked at living and travel expenses incurred in previous years, to determine whether there was a pattern of travel that supported or refuted our finding.

incurred while in the National Capital Region and other travel expenses when we determined that the Senator or former Senator had not established a substantive presence at his or her declared . In some of these cases, we looked at living and travel expenses incurred in previous years, to determine whether there was a pattern of travel that supported or refuted our finding. There was such a pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were prevented from reaching an audit opinion about whether the expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business.

Appendix B—Files recommended for review by the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

120. We found 21 cases for which there were expenses incurred by the Senator or former Senator that were not for parliamentary business or that we determined were not in accordance with the applicable Senate rules, policies, or guidelines.

121. We could not accept these expenses as having been incurred for parliamentary business, because of the nature, significance, or frequency of the transactions, or because there was insufficient information to support them. The following are examples:

There were cases where we determined that Senators arranged travel using public funds for the primary purpose of attending a personal event, such as an anniversary celebration or a board meeting, or to reach a destination that would facilitate a personal trip.

There were cases where the Senator’s designated traveller (such as his or her spouse) undertook travel to, or stopped over at, a destination that was not related to reunification with the Senator or any other parliamentary business.

Basis for individual reports

122. Given that Senators are responsible to account for their use of funds, it is our view that they have an obligation to demonstrate that the expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, and to provide supporting documentation for that assertion. Our responsibility was to conduct an independent examination of Senators’ expenses and other transactions. Our audit did not involve assessing intent or assigning blame. Furthermore, we did not conduct an investigation or enquiry that other authorities may be better equipped to perform, as those authorities have different powers, duties, and functions.

123. We spent considerable time gaining an understanding of the approaches taken by Senators and former Senators to perform their parliamentary duties and functions. We then considered their views and perspectives, in light of the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, and we exercised our professional judgment in determining whether their expenses were incurred for parliamentary business. The fundamental principle was that public funds should not be used to pay for personal or private activities.

124. In exercising our professional judgment, we have not reported some expenses that were technically against the rules. For example, some taxi expenses for travel from a hotel to the Senate were incurred for health and safety reasons, given poor weather conditions. Similarly, we found some claims that had been made or reimbursed as a result of administrative errors. Given the small amounts involved, we did not treat such expenses as reportable matters for the purposes of this report.

125. In those cases where Senators could not provide sufficient and appropriate evidence, we were not obligated to accept the assertions they made about their use of funds. As a result, our findings are based on whether there was sufficient and appropriate audit evidence that the expenses incurred by Senators were for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public funds. When there was insufficient evidence or evidence that did not satisfy our audit objective, we determined that expenses were not incurred for parliamentary business.

Why this matters

126. In our view, Senators and their staff should not claim for expenses that are not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, or guidelines, and they should not use public funds for their personal or private activities. Spending that is ineligible, or that appears to be for personal or private activities, creates a reputational risk for individual Senators and the Senate as an institution.

Recommendations

127. The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration should immediately refer the nine individual cases reported in Appendix A to other authorities, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for further investigation.

128. The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration should consider the 21 individual cases reported in Appendix B, to make a final determination about whether the transactions reported were for parliamentary business and in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines. The Committee should then determine whether further action is necessary for those transactions, and should publish its decisions.

Conclusion

129. We concluded that not all Senators’ expenses and other Senators’ transactions were properly controlled or incurred for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public funds. While we have not provided an individual report for 86 Senators and former Senators, we have provided individual reports for the other 30.

130. We urge the Senate to act on our recommendations and effect transformative change to the management and oversight of Senators’ expenses.