Goring The Oxen

"We found that the oversight, accountability and transparency of Senators' expenses was quite simply not adequate. Senators often did not prioritize consideration of the cost to taxpayers."
"The lack of transparency was something that was obvious fairly early on. But what struck me in terms of that was the depth to which a number of senators simply felt that they didn't have to be transparent with the spending."
Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada

Auditor General Michael Ferguson is shown during an interview in his office in Ottawa this week, after tabling a scathing report on Senate spending. FRED CHARTRAND / THE CANADIAN PRESS

"The Auditor General depends on incorrect and uninformed interpretation of the applicable rules, and uses criteria never before applied to Senate expenses."
Senator Don Oliver, retired

"The presentation and tone of your general observations insinuate that I misappropriated my office resources in a nefarious manner. I find these apparent accusations to be a defamatory affront to my personal integrity."
Senator Gerry St.Germain, retired

"I want to make it clear that we wholeheartedly embrace the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability that underscore the auditor general's recommendations."
Leo Housakos, Senate Speaker

"Raising awareness is an integral part of my duties as a Senator I agreed to represent victims of crime and their families. It is unthinkable that I would be able to perform this work without travelling outside Ottawa."
Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

There are 105 Senators in the Red Chamber of the Canadian Parliament. An investigation by the Auditor General's office has just concluded into the expenses claimed by the Senators and the results of the findings were published in a 116-page audit report released this week which found a "pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence" in support of expense claims for some members of the Upper Chamber.

Some of the examples feature quite certainly a lackadaisical attitude toward the public purse on the part of the good Senators. Travel pertaining to a fishing trip, to attend a family funeral or travel related to a family member's convocation represent some of those examples. Per diems charged when none should be, and taxis used for personal reasons, and other such, but nothing quite as egregious as some Senators claiming housing allowances they were not entitled to.

In total, questionable spending on the part of the honourable Senators came to a total of $991,917 on the part of 30 Senators through the extensive audit. Travel claims amounted to $570,709, residency $259,657, contract claims $136,944, and 'other' questionable claims, $24,608 to arrive at that total just a tad under $1-million of taxpayer funding that should not ethically have been claimed.

And the cost of the audit to come up with those figures and the damning condemnation of those 30 Senators, current and retired, whose blatant stretching of allowable expense claims has brought the wrath of the country down on them? $23.6-million. Correct: it has taken almost $24-million in expenses related to the formal audit to pinpoint close to $1-million that was incorrectly billed to the taxpayer. The $24-million was 'correctly' billed to the taxpayer.

If the moral of the story is that there is no expense too much to bring people who exhibit too great a degree of hubris in their elevated state as appointed Senators to augment the elected lawmakers of the land in Parliament, to suffer the ignominy of being made public disgraces, then the mission was achieved. The 30 Senators whose spending was flagged will surely rue the day they felt entitled to claim what they should not have.

Even if they were suffering under the impression that they did nothing wrong, and that they were indeed entitled to expense certain activities. Nine current and former Senators of that 30 total have had their files referred to the RCMP for possible criminal investigation. And from that group were five who claimed tens of thousands in ineligible expenses declaring their primary residence to be outside Ottawa when clearly that was not the case.

An additional 21 current and former Senators claimed thousands on travel and additional expenses with little-to-nothing to do with Parliamentary affairs according to the report. A Senate oversight committee will undertake a review of their cases. In fact, the report recommends the Senate initiate a wholly independent oversight body to review such expenses.

The Senators suffering under the mortification of these revelations highlighting their time in office, have the option of rebutting the charges and some of them have done so. They were permitted 500-word responses to be tabled with the audit report; in their opinion a "scurrilous" and "defamatory" document.

This will not displease the formidably sour Auditor General one whit. Who has himself no doubt considered using such descriptives on his own account when he was brought up short by journalists questioning his authorization of spending on 'constructive entertainment' for his office staff, on the public purse.