Ethically Challenged

"I consulted with the Clerk of the Senate, Paul Belisle, whether I was allowed to declare my new home as my primary residence, given that it was a new home and that I had previously resided in Ottawa.
"The Clerk of the Senate informed me that pursuant to Senate guidelines, I could designate my new home as my primary residence, as it was more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill."
Senator Mac Harb

The Senator and the Clerk of the Senate obviously both shared a skewed sense of propriety in what could or should be ethically charged to the taxpayer, if what Mr. Harb in his sworn statement which forms part of his legal suit against the Senate which he has filed with the Ontario Superior Court can in fact be proven.

Senator Harb is no newcomer to politics, having been involved in municipal politics previous to his having been appointed to the Senate in 2003. And he diligently did his homework, seeking assurances that he could switch his primary home designation from the home he had owned and lived in for decades in Ottawa, to a cottage he purchased in La Passe, over 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill.

The Clerk of the Senate to whom his statement refers has long left his term there. Senator Harb made a well considered decision to officially designate his La Passe cottage, purchased in 2003, as his primary residence, while owning and inhabiting the house he also owned for much longer. And in 2008 he made an additional property purchase, a condominium on Prince of Wales Drive.

It was that condominium he later claimed also as a secondary residence for expense purposes, even though he registered its address formally as one to which he would be accustomed to receiving official documents. "I will be staying there when I'm in Ottawa", he informed the Senate finance department.

In fact he 'stayed there' and also 'stayed' at his principle home which was also designed secondary, far more frequently than at the La Passe cottage, designated his 'principle residence', for the purpose of claiming housing expenses.

And he is outraged that the Senate finance committee, and an audit done by Deloitte have concluded that he billed for housing erroneously. How was he to know that it was assumed that someone appointed to the Senate should be presumed to be honest and above attempts to bilk the taxpayer?

The rules were insufficiently definitive.

If the Senate and the taxpayers of Canada think they can dredge $230,000 out of his bank accounts representing housing allowances and travel expenses that he billed without conscience, they're day-dreaming.

He'll fight them every step of the way.