Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 03

20 / Canadian Government Executive // March/April 2017 Tom Wileman T he Senate has long been contro- versial largely because it is un- elected and proves difficult to re- form. The expenses scandal that broke out in 2012 made it all the more so. The allegations of misuse of public funds for personal rather than parliamentary business captured media and public atten- tion to an unprecedented degree. In June 2013, Senator Marjory LeBreton, then Leader of the Government in the Senate, told senators that they “must face reality... and listen to Canadians who are outraged by what has happened in the Senate.” The issue was not entirely new. To get a sense of the issue, the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the Internal Economy Committee), with jurisdiction over expens- Whatever Happened to the Auditor General’s es, had commissioned external audits; an internal audit function was also in place. On a parallel track, the Auditor General released a report on the Senate Admin- istration in 2012, the second such audit since 1991. It was designed to examine the approximately $100 million in public funds spent by the Senate each year. Al- though the audit did not examine indi- vidual expenses incurred and claimed by senators, it found that the Administration needed to improve documentation and recommended “sufficient information to ensure that expense claims are appropri- ate.” The Auditor General also noted that internal audit had done little to verify the expenses claimed by individual senators. The scandal grew out of questionable claims for travel and living expenses. The Accountability Senate Expenses Audit? Senate’s policy was to reimburse senators for living expenses in the National Capital Region (NCR), provided that their primary residence was more than 100 km away. Media attention focused on senators who claimed living expenses, but actually lived in the NCR and/or claimed inappropriate travel expenses. To deal with these mat- ters, the Internal Economy Committee launched audits and reviews; as a result, some senators made repayments volun- tarily and others were ordered to do so. The Senate adopted new rules governing travel and expenses. In May 2013, the RCMP launched an in- vestigation, leading to fraud and breach of trust charges against three Senators, one of whom, Senator Mike Duffy, later went to trial. In June 2013, the pressure of public opinion led the Senate to ask the Auditor General to undertake a comprehensive au- dit of Senate expenses, including senators’ expenses, and the Auditor General agreed to conduct it. The audit did not include senators who were the subject of an RCMP investigation. The Auditor General’s Report In June 2015 the Auditor General released his report. It examined all expenses (ex- cept salaries) incurred by 116 senators and former senators between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2013. It covered 80,000 transac- tions, cost $23.4 million, and made 22 rec- ommendations. It named 30 senators for questionable expenses, including nine for possible RCMP investigation. No findings were reported on the other 86 senators. The Auditor General called for “trans- formational change” in the way senators expenses are handled – and made recom- mendations on how it could be done. The report found that senators governed themselves with limited independent over- sight. They did not place a priority on costs to taxpayers, and the information they pro- vided to support expenses was often insuf- ficient. Disclosure of information about ex- penses did not provide sufficient detail to