Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - December 8, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 8, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters, and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. I want to remind colleagues that we have to vacate the room this morning at 10 o'clock because the Foreign Affairs Committee has an important meeting via video conference. The chair of that committee has been rather forceful in making her argument that it's very rare we do vacate the room on time, so let's try to accommodate the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning.
Let's get to item 1, which is the adoption of minutes of the proceedings of the December 1, 2016 meeting. Any questions? It was moved by Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Munson. If we all agree, it's carried.
Item 2: We have, as promised, an update on the former retired senators and the OAG report. We've asked our counsel to come before us this morning and give us a full briefing. We have with us Brenda Hollingsworth. There's a document that will be distributed around the room. It will be numbered. At the end of the meeting, give it back for confidentiality purposes.
Senator Marshall: We are public, aren't we?
The Chair: We are public. The presentation will be made in public. After the presentation, if there are any questions on the specific files, then we will go in camera if the committee wishes. My recommendation to the committee is that we do the questioning part of it on specific files in camera.
Maybe we can ask Brenda and Michel. You'll do it from here? That's fine. You have the floor, Brenda.
Brenda Hollingsworth, Lawyer, Auger Hollingsworth Professional Corporation: Thank you for having me. I'd like to start by giving you some background on what steps I took in looking at the expenses of the seven former senators, so that when you get my recommendation, you will know where it's coming from.
I was asked to look at expenses that were challenged by the Auditor General for seven former senators. The total amount of the expenses that were called into question in the Auditor General's report was just over $550,000, a fairly large amount of money.
Initially, I was provided with the Senate's internal files and the Auditor General's report, and I was asked if it would be possible to make a recommendation based on that information. In fact, it wasn't. To our surprise, the Auditor General then agreed to provide the working papers for those seven former senators. That's what I had. It was about six banker's boxes full of documents, double-spaced — about 10,000 pages. If you're wondering what's taken so long, it's the 10,000 pages that I did, in fact, read.
I read those documents with a certain context. I had read the decision of Justice Vaillancourt in R. v. Duffy. I had read the reports of former Justice Binnie for the files that went to arbitration. I had some representations from two counsel for two of the seven former senators. I looked at your rules, policies and your resource guide. I had a couple of telephone calls with counsel for the Auditor General. That was the information that I had when I looked at the expenses.
The other thing that's important to note is that I'm a lawyer, not an auditor. I have no way of saying whether the auditor did what an auditor is supposed to do. I looked at whether a court would order that the former senators repay any of the amounts in the Auditor General's report. I was looking at it from a legal standard. I know some of you are lawyers, but for those who aren't, in civil litigation — in a lawsuit — what I'm looking at is: Are we 51 per cent sure that we are going to win and the senator is going to lose? That's one way to look at it. Conversely, is there a 51 per cent chance that the expense was legitimate? If it was, the Senate would lose if it sued. That was the test that I applied.
A very significant difference between what a court would do and what the Auditor General did in this case has to do with the testimony of the senators. I don't know what your experiences were with the Auditor General, but in the case of these seven former senators, they were all interviewed by the Auditor General. Transcripts of those interviews were provided, so I had a chance to read the transcripts of what these senators said to the Auditor General and his auditors.
In fact, most of the time in relation to these expenses, the former senator had an explanation for what the expense was, why it was incurred and how it related to parliamentary business. In a court, that would carry weight. Verbal testimony about what the expense was for, absence evidence to the contrary, would likely carry the day.
But that wasn't the approach the Auditor General took. The approach that the Auditor General took was that if there was not a documentary corroboration for the expense, it wasn't allowed. For example, we would have a senator who would say, "Yes, on this day, I went to this meeting, I gave a presentation, this is what it was about and this is how it relates to my mandate as a senator.'' Then the Auditor General's auditors would say, "Okay, where's the invitation? Show me a piece of paper that shows where you went that day.'' If there wasn't a piece of paper, even though there was a reasonable explanation, it was not allowed.
When I looked at those transcripts and expenses, I knew that approach wouldn't fly in a court. It may be standard audit procedure — I really couldn't say — but it's not something that a court would look at in that way. That is the context of the legal analysis I did.
I then identified challenges as we went through and the types of explanations that senators gave. One of the explanations that we heard time and time again was, "I relied on Senate administration.'' The senator would say that, "my expense form was clear on its face. For example, I was giving a protocol gift for $79. It was clear on the face of the expense form. It was approved by Senate administration. I was paid. I never gave it another thought. Based on that pattern of acceptance, I came to believe that was okay.''
So it happened often where the senators said they were relying on a pattern of acceptance by the Senate administration.
Another issue that arose was that there were some discrepancies at least during the audit period between what is in the Senate Administrative Rules, the travel policy and the senators' resource guide.
The differences are nuanced, but what the Auditor General did was always applied the most stringent test to the senator, even if the most stringent test was in a less binding document.
So if the Senate Administrative Rules was the most important document and was more generous than the Senators' Resource Guide, it didn't matter; the Auditor General applied the Senators' Resource Guide. That left some of the senators feeling like they were being subjected to something that was a suggestion more than a rule and that they complied with the letter of the rule, which is in the SARs.
Another challenge that I had, and I think a court would have, was — I'm sure you can relate to this — where a trip or an instance of hospitality combined a public and a private purpose. Generally speaking, the Auditor General's approach was that if you go on a trip and there is a private aspect to it, absent very compelling evidence, they would disqualify that expense. If you went to Vancouver and did a bunch of public business, but you also visited your uncle, that would be excluded.
When we're looking at the numbers we're talking about, often there were trips that were likely public trips but had a small private component that the Auditor General didn't accept.
Another big concern we have in terms of going forward with lawsuits, if you've been involved in litigation, you'll know it's very difficult to proceed on small-dollar items. The cost benefit of small-dollar items is rarely there.
A large number of the expenses that make up that half million dollars are tiny items like taxi expenses. There are hundreds of taxi expenses that are challenged. First of all, there's no way to tell if you have a taxi expense that says, "From home to Bank Street,'' and it was four years ago, there's no way the Senate can make a case that was private business and ought to be paid. We would be relying on the testimony of the former senator, and we don't know whether that would go one way or the other. I presume because these were small-dollar items, the Auditor General did not go taxi chit by taxi chit. You're probably all thankful for that, but that's another challenge that a lot of these items are small meals or taxi chits.
Other issues I was thinking about is that litigation is slow. If we started a lawsuit tomorrow, we would probably have a trial at the end of 2018, beginning of 2019. We're dealing with, for the most part, elderly people. Some of them are ill. The chance of getting testimony from a number of these people, if one of them is deceased, would be very challenging.
Senator Campbell: But the Auditor General would go there.
Senator Smith: We don't believe you're dead.
Ms. Hollingsworth: Another issue I mentioned at the beginning was that I was surprised to get the Auditor General's working papers. I was surprised because the Auditor General is not a compellable witness. In their statute, you cannot issue a Summons to Witness for the Auditor General to testify. That means that all of the work that they did would have to be redone, or anything we wanted to pursue would have to be redone, because they wouldn't be able to come and testify to what they found. In terms of cost benefit and the expense analysis, that seemed problematic.
A final general concern that I had was that a lot of these cases — this will become clear shortly — would end up in small claims court. The jurisdiction of small claims court is $25,000, and that's where a lot of these cases would be.
The decisions that you would get from small claims court are possibly not decisions that the Senate would want in terms of interpretation of your rules and your policies. Small claims court is not presided over by judges; it's deputy judges. For an institution, it's generally important that if your legislation will be interpreted, it be interpreted by high- quality judicial officials. I would suggest that the small claims court might not be in the best interests of the Senate.
There were other issues raised by a number of the former senators' counsel. There is a limitations period argument that was raised, because some of these expenses date back to 2011. We have a two-year limitation period in Ontario. There's certainly an argument that time starts to run when you got the Auditor General's report and then you would still be in time, but that is an issue.
Other senators have also raised a concern about jurisdiction and have argued that if you're going to sue me, you're going to sue me in my home province, and that potentially raises the possibility of having multiple lawyers conducting multiple trials in different venues across the country. I do think we have a legitimate argument on jurisdiction, that it could all be done in Ontario, but that would be a risk, and just fighting that could be a problem or an expensive issue.
Do you have the handout? If you look at the last page, you'll see that there is a grey chart entitled "Potential Claims by Expense Type.''
I took the expenses that were challenged by the Auditor General and I broke them down by category. I did that because a lot of the arguments are similar by category, as opposed to senator by senator. What you see there is that almost half of the expenses relate to residency disputes.
My view is that on these facts for these seven former senators, the Senate is unlikely to succeed in any of the residency claims, with one $5,000 exception. That is largely because of the decision in the Duffy case, and the evidence that the former Law Clerk gave in that case, which is corroborated by what senators said in their interviews, which is we were told we had residency if we had ID, paid taxes, had a driver's licence, et cetera, in our home province.
In terms of winning that aspect, in light of that evidence and in light of the Duffy decision, the chance is virtually zero.
In terms of the travel expenses, this is one place where there is a bit of judgment involved. Is it parliamentary or private? The Auditor General took a very narrow view. When you look at that number of almost $200,000, you have to start from the premise if they had any doubt at all, they were excluding the expense.
You will also see in the third column of that chart, $46,734 that has been repaid by the senators since the Auditor General's report, including one $20,000 cheque that we received yesterday.
What we would consider the low-hanging fruit, the easy travel expenses to challenge, have already been repaid. What's left are things where we would be left to decide if something is a parliamentary purpose or not, and we would have the evidence that I described from the senators, where they describe that it is.
When I went through, after the subtractions for what has been paid, are there a few expenses that could go either way? Absolutely. Are the former senators' records about the parliamentary purpose of all of their travel perfect? Absolutely not. But in each case, when you factor in that it wouldn't be one lawsuit, it would be seven lawsuits, the ability to bring a cost-effective lawsuit for recovery of what's left over just wasn't there.
In terms of the service contracts, a number of the former senators had service contracts challenged by the Auditor General. In none of the cases that I looked at was there any suggestion that the service contracts were actually personal in nature. There was no suggestion that these were people hired for their private business being paid for by the Senate.
The issue that the Auditor General took was really a value for dollar: "We think you should have done it cheaper. We think you should have used a different type of staff,'' applying their opinion onto the judgment of these former senators. That was, obviously, problematic. All of the former senators were able to justify and explain why they chose the service contracts that they did.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that a court would do a value-for-dollar analysis and second-guess how the former senators wanted to run their business.
The other issue that the Auditor General raised in relation to service contracts had to do with the form of the initial contract and the tasks described on the invoices not matching perfectly. I did review the individual invoices, and it's true that sometimes there were slight discrepancies, but they were not significant.
If you look at it holistically and practically, the nature of the work was as set out in the contract. There may have been small additions, but would a court require the senator to repay that when those invoices were all looked at by Senate administration and stamped for approval? I don't see that happening.
For all of the service contracts, my sense is that there is virtually zero chance of recovery.
The remaining items on the list all come down to small-dollar items. There's about $6,000 worth of hospitality charges. Those, as you know, are mostly meals. Approximately $3,500 or $3,600 of that has already been repaid.
The prospect of bringing a lawsuit to sue over individual dinner receipts is not practical and certainly not recommended; the same thing with the taxi chits. I've also already explained that.
In terms of the gifts, again those are small-dollar items. The former senators consistently said, "We've always filed these with Senate administration. They've always approved them. We didn't know there was a problem.''
Miscellaneous was generally mail and courier. Again, small-dollar items that you would never be able to pursue reasonably.
In the end, the amount that could potentially be recovered might be $60,000, but that wouldn't be one lawsuit for $60,000; that would be seven lawsuits for a portion of $60,000. Even in small claims court, when you look at the legal fees that the Senate would incur for those kinds of cases, I would never recommend that a client undertake that kind of claim. The cost benefit is just not there.
The Chair: Colleagues, with the agreement of the committee, I think we can pursue questioning on the general scope of the presentation, if you want. I remind colleagues that if you want to get into specific files of senators, I suggest we would then go in camera, but I would assume there would be enough questions on the general scope of the presentation.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much for your analysis. It was very thorough.
We have now a number of senators who have these sometimes spectacular dollar amount allegations against them. Your recommendation is that we just let it go in spite of the fact that you say there are some in there.
We've given these senators a number of avenues to completely clear their name, and they haven't taken them. This is kind of the last step.
Please don't tell me specifics, but are there senators on that list who — never mind what we could sue them for or it just isn't worth it — have a zero, in your mind, that we could exonerate today? That's question one.
Question two: Were there any expenses that you felt were flagrant violations as compared to some of the ones we've dealt with and had in the media and that the public is gobsmacked about? Could you comment on those?
Ms. Hollingsworth: Sure. In terms of your first question, there was definitely one senator where I felt it was zero.
In terms of your second question, there is one former senator where there were a number of trips that seemed, to me, to be private business, even on that person's own explanation. It then comes down to a dollar value, the cost of pursuing it.
There are other senators where, if I had been doing the questioning instead of the Auditor General, I would have asked more questions. There was an explanation, but it left me with question marks. I would have followed up with more questions, but in the interviews, they didn't do that.
Senator Tannas: There is one other hypothetical that I think we need to consider. If we had had the right of offset — in other words, if we still controlled some piece of the purse strings here — would you have a different recommendation on some of these expenses?
Ms. Hollingsworth: Possibly, yes. I was also mindful of the recovery; for example, where somebody's trying to recover from an estate.
Senator Tannas: Exactly. If for some of the current sitting senators we had the right of offset and we exercised it, you're not suggesting that we pay all that money back?
Ms. Hollingsworth: Absolutely not.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Lankin: That was a very interesting question, Senator Tannas. The answer to your last question may have just answered mine.
I wondered, are we at risk of differential treatment, somebody who just holds off and doesn't pay it back, where the recommendation is that nothing else be done, but there are people who have paid back who may have a similar situation and, if examined with the same kind of magnifying glass that counsel has looked at, we may arrive at a different decision? I'm worried about a double standard in treatment that might be being established. I don't know that, so I'm asking that question.
Ms. Hollingsworth: I understand the concern. I have no idea what went on with all of the other senators.
In the end, my analysis came down to what it will cost taxpayers to pursue these items. There are expenses that if these were sitting senators, I would say to pursue, but to spend $15,000 to recover $6,000 is the concern.
I could identify claims that, absent any cost-benefit analysis, would be pursuable. It really is an issue for the Senate to decide. If you want to make a point, you could pursue them, but it's going to be an expensive point to make, and there may be more effective ways to make that point by tightening up the rules or changing things on a going-forward basis.
Senator Lankin: That's a helpful answer, and it might help us determine that we don't want to pursue the matter, given the cost-benefit analysis.
The flip side of that, in your remarks, I understood that it was not only the cost-benefit analysis but that it was also, as you described, the very narrow or rigorous approach that the Auditor General took. For example, where there were two sets of references of what the rule might be and the higher order reference had a laxer interpretation, he went with the lower order reference. That might be applicable to some of the expenses that have been repaid as well.
On the flip side, I wonder if we are in a situation where there has been a potentially unfair or uneven application of our analysis to this point. I know that that is a potential problem for us, but I'm trying to understand what the implication of this is.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Batters, maybe I can add to that, Senator Lankin. All senators, after the process of the Auditor General, had options, and the option is to go before Justice Binnie. Some senators had the option to pay back, and other senators had the option to wait for litigation. Each senator made their choice at that given moment in time and, of course, we unfortunately can't go back and revisit decisions.
Senator Batters: I have one or two quick questions for the public part, but I want to ask more questions in camera.
You mentioned that you looked through transcripts of the Auditor General's interviews. So there are actual transcripts, and not just copies of notes?
Ms. Hollingsworth: That's right. There were actual transcripts where they would have "S'' for the senator and exactly what he or she said, verbatim. There were actual transcripts.
Senator Batters: Were they taped meetings?
Ms. Hollingsworth: They must have been. I don't know how else they would have been able to do that.
Senator Downe: Senator Tannas actually asked most of my questions, but I would like to get back, again, to the cost-benefit analysis. As you know, chair, my original position on the Auditor General coming in was I was strongly supportive — so supportive, in fact, that I moved a bill in the Senate that he also to include the House of Commons. I withdrew that bill the minute I saw that it cost $23 million.
Senator Campbell: $27 million.
Senator Downe: And even higher. He had identified less than $1 million in wrongful claims and it was further reduced by Justice Binnie. The cost-benefit analysis was totally out of whack. I read in the paper where the Auditor General indicated he spent, on average, a thousand hours on every senator. At which point, checking Senator Marshall, did he realize there was no problem, or no problem in my case? It went on and on. It was the boondoggle to end all boondoggles. People all over town that had any connection to the Auditor General were being hired on a retainer to come in to spend a thousand hours.
I withdrew my bill on that and I had the same concern about this. I recognize Senator Tannas' view, and I won't put words in his mouth, but my view is we don't want anybody to get away with something that was wrong, but at what point do we cut our costs?
I think the people of Prince Edward Island are horrified that the Senate spent $23 million or $27 million on the audit, plus all the millions we spent in the Senate hiring additional private sector auditors. Madam, I'm sure your bill won't be $23 million but it will be significant because of all the work you put in. This cost goes on and on and on.
I think you know from my comments where I'm coming down on this issue.
Senator Smith: This is just a point that summarizes, in very few words, what the Auditor General said, having had the opportunity to work with Senator Marshall and Senator Furey — the three people dealing with these people for 12 months: you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That was the mood, the attitude, the plan and the strategy. Those words summarize every question they asked: You were guilty, you were guilty and you were guilty.
When you keep that context in the back of your mind, it summarizes what Brenda is talking about and everything that we went through. And for any of you, with your face-to-face meetings, I would hope that that was the thought that you had, because it was a terrible situation to be told in no uncertain terms that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
For the new senators, I think it's important you understand the context. It was tough.
Senator Tkachuk: I think it was a travesty on the part of the Auditor General for including former senators in the audit as well. They didn't have the staff and they didn't have the resources that we had as senators who were here and always available to the Auditor General, with staff and files always available.
The idea that they decided to take on the former senators was bad enough as it was, and I think, by what we've experienced over the last number of years, including this, it shows that we were right all along. It's really unfortunate that some of these senators got judged by the media in stories that were written where they had no way to fight back because they didn't know if they were going to go to court or not.
This is not a very good thing.
Senator Cordy: This is the second time I've heard the presentation and I think I'm madder the second time than I was the first time I heard it at steering.
I'd like to go back to the point made by Senator Smith about being guilty until being proven innocent. When you read the transcripts about the explanations for expenses when senators explained why they had made a trip or who they had taken out for dinner, what was your sense?
I think that when we were hearing this, this morning, we could all relate to when we were being interviewed by the representatives from the Auditor General's department. I was asked about a trip where I had driven from my home in Dartmouth to Cape Breton, which is where I was born, and I was doing a speaking engagement. Because I drove, I didn't have boarding passes as evidence of the trip.
The question was how I could prove that I was there. Fortunately, because I grew up in Cape Breton and because it's a small town, it was in the newspaper. My assistant went online and got the newspaper clipping my name was in to show that I was actually there. But if that same speaking engagement had taken place in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Vancouver, it's unlikely that it would have been in the newspapers, so therefore, except for my word, which I value, there would have been no other way to prove it. That was very frustrating.
In your reading, did you get the sense that it was guilty until proven innocent?
Ms. Hollingsworth: Well, my sense was that the Auditor General put no credence into what the former senators had to say. If you could not prove something, then it was disallowed. To the extent that's what you mean, then, yes.
Senator Cordy: That's what I meant. Thank you.
Another example that was brought back to me — and maybe it's because my husband is an accountant and I know what they charge per hour — was that I had two people in my office, likely making $450 or $550 an hour, who asked to see the $9.99 kettle for my office. By the time I went to get the kettle out of the cupboard and bring it back, the taxpayers were probably charged $200. I'm not sure that's good value for money.
Senator Campbell: As you know, I would never pile on. My concern is this: All of these senators have been slammed, hammered and degraded in their communities and they can't ever get that back, no matter what we say or do here. Two names come to mind: Sheila Fraser and Elizabeth Marshall. They would never, ever have put out a report like this. I know that.
I actually think that there has to be some recourse against the Auditor General. I guess the worry is: who audits the auditor? How do we find out how he tells us, or tells Canadians, more importantly, that $26 million of their money was spent for their benefit? I think that's an issue that we really have to look at.
I'd really like to have him down here, but I don't want to spend the next three weeks going over the Auditor General. But somehow we have to make sure that the media realize the travesty that went on here. It's disgusting. If it weren't senators, they'd have never done this. There's no way that anybody else would have put up with that. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I don't want to curtail anyone's democratic right to comment, but we ought to focus more on the decision at hand, which we're trying to get to this morning. There will be ample opportunity for everybody to evaluate and judge the overall benefit or lack of benefit from this particular audit. Unfortunately, I remind colleagues it was the Senate that had decided to bring the Auditor General in.
If there are any regrets for some of those decisions, some of us should look at ourselves in the mirror, me included.
Senator Tkachuk: He has to be responsible for his actions. Calling the Auditor General in to do an audit and how he did it has nothing to do with this committee or the Senate.
The Chair: You're absolutely right.
Senator Mitchell: I want to emphasize Senator Downe's well-made point that $27 million defines what's getting awfully close to zero on $200 million worth of expenses.
Second, I want to emphasize the point that these people have paid a huge price. It's not like they're getting off scot- free by any means whatsoever. In fact, it may well be beyond the imagination of people who have never been through that kind of reputational attack to imagine the price they have paid. They have paid a price.
Senator Lankin: I understand the response you gave to my earlier question that people had recourse, could take actions, make decisions and the past is the past.
I'm troubled, though. Senator Tkachuk talked about these retired senators as individuals who didn't have the resources of the Senate to support them, who may not have been in a position to seek legal advice, or who may have sought legal advice and have those expenses. For some of them who, at the time, felt that they needed just to pay back that money, there's a basic unfairness. I don't know if there's any way to redress what those senators have gone through; namely, that without resources and legal help, they paid what, if you examined things to the same degree, their expenses might have been as a result of an overzealous Auditor General and not any wrongdoing at all. I'm troubled by that.
Senator Manning: From day one, we were concerned about people's reputations. That didn't seem to be a big concern for some others. We may not make it to the people's court but we definitely went through a kangaroo court for a while.
I'm not sure if I understand this completely. In your last recommendation, "it is recommended no further action to be taken'' to agree that spending $1,000 to find $20 is not necessarily good expense on money.
On the travel expenses, your last bullet says: "Demand for payment of trips with adequate explanations should be made.'' On hospitality claims, your last bullet says: "Where no repayment has been made, demand for repayment should be made.''
What exactly does that mean? I must have missed something.
Ms. Hollingsworth: I didn't actually refer to that and I ought to have. That is an option. In the end, my recommendation at the end is my recommendation. But if you were looking for a middle-of-the-road step, it would be to make demand for payment, send a letter demanding the repayment of the expenses. There are some expenses that are questionable. Demand repayment and see what happens. Maybe they will repay — maybe they won't — once it's narrowed down to issues that maybe they would agree with.
Certainly with one senator, I have a relationship with her lawyer, so I spoke to him and I said "I have some problems with some of these expenses. It may turn out to be difficult for your client.'' We ended up with repayment of $20,000. That just happened this week. It was her situation I was thinking about when I wrote that, but it actually happened before we showed up today because we already got the cheque.
Senator Manning: The bottom line is that this is a public meeting today.
Ms. Hollingsworth: That's right.
Senator Manning: Your final recommendation is "it is recommended that no further action be taken.'' So if I was sitting down at home and you were demanding something, I'd tell you to take a hike.
Ms. Hollingsworth: Right. Which is why we got the cheque yesterday.
Senator Manning: Okay.
Senator Manning: As I would say in Newfoundland.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'm seeking guidance from the committee. Is there a need for additional questioning in camera?
Does the committee agree to go in camera for more specific questioning?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: I reconvene the public portion of the meeting. After the presentation from Brenda Hollingsworth regarding the update on the former senators we were pursuing subsequent to the OAG's report, I seek guidance from this committee.
I recommend as chair that we accept the recommendation from counsel not to pursue these cases given the fact that after a cost assessment evaluation, it would make absolutely no sense for us to be burning taxpayers' money at a higher ratio than what we would be recouping as expenses.
I also highlight that I for one and I know many of my colleagues have expressed a great concern about the way the Auditor General had conducted himself. I regret to say that it has brought into question the credibility of the Auditor General. In my mind as a parliamentarian going forward, every time I hear the Auditor General coming out with reports of audits in various departments, I as a parliamentarian will question the validity, thoroughness and rigour that he unfortunately did not apply to this institution.
Colleagues, there's a motion on the floor to accept the recommendation. Moved by Senator Campbell. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hollingsworth.
Colleagues, we move to item 3 of the agenda, the eighth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes a recommended allocation for two committee budgets.
Your subcommittee met with the deputy chair of the Energy Committee whose supplementary budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $18,704 for one activity, which is a trip to Montreal. This activity is in relation to their study on the effects of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. The committee had previously submitted a budget request for travel to Western Canada and Ontario and asked us to defer consideration of the Montreal activity.
At this time, the deputy chair now indicates that the committee is prepared to proceed with a revised travel plan and, as a result, has submitted a supplementary budget request to complete this activity.
Based on the information provided, we recommend a supplementary release of funds for activity 1, Montreal, in the amount of $18,704.
The subcommittee also met with the Chair of the National Finance Committee whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $18,000 for general expenses for the purpose of hiring a graphic designer, a sole source database consultant and for printing costs for reports.
This activity is in relation to their study on the federal government infrastructure funding program. The bulk of the funds will be used for this database consultant who will build an online database for committee members and others to query, track and follow up on all the infrastructure projects across the federal government. The remainder would be to hire a graphic designer for the production of an eventual report and for any related printing costs.
Based on the information provided for this budget application, we therefore recommend a release of funds for general expenses in the amount of $18,000.
In anticipation of questions, I would say that we remain over-allocated in the committee budget process, but we have now seen the completion of enough trips to know that we have significant surplus that will be coming back and that this will fit in there.
With that, I will move the adoption of the eighth report of the subcommittee.
The Chair: Do we have a seconder? Senator Marshall. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 4 is a request from Senator Duffy to appeal the decision regarding legal fees. I think most of you received the letter from his lawyer last week after his request to us and us accepting him to come before us. His lawyer sent a long letter questioning the decision, questioning the validity of the decision but yet seems not to be willing to want to come before us after all.
I remind colleagues that Senator Duffy was requested to come before Internal Economy back in 2013, and he refused then to come and review his case when he had reservations. In written form, on a number of occasions, he has pointed out that he's not happy with a number of decisions steering and Internal Economy has come to. We granted him the opportunity on his request to come before us. He again has not taken us up on his request.
So I want to point out that Senator Duffy has the ultimate opportunity, like any senator, to go before the chamber of the whole if he feels he's been slighted in any way; or if he feels that Internal Economy or steering has not taken the appropriate decisions, he can appeal them to the Senate as a whole. I encourage him to do so. I don't think there's anything more we can say on that file.
Senator McCoy: Everybody has a right to appear on appeal in most cases, and if they ask for an adjournment, so to speak, they get one. Certainly in the courts we even have senators who have brought this to our attention, the long delays in the judicial system.
I think you have asked him once and he hasn't appeared on this appeal; is that correct?
The Chair: No, he requested to come before us to appeal the fact that we refused to pay his legal fees.
Senator McCoy: Yes, I understand that. And how often have you asked him to appear on that request?
The Chair: Maybe you haven't seen the letter. We've informed him that he can come before us and we've accepted.
Senator McCoy: I know, but how often? Just once?
The Chair: He said no. He refused.
Senator McCoy: He said no that time or did he say no, period?
The Chair: This time.
Senator McCoy: To this date? On this date?
The Chair: Not this date. Any date that he was willing to come before us, we were flexible. I think maybe, Senator McCoy, you may not have seen the last correspondence.
Senator McCoy: I have not seen the correspondence, that's true.
The Chair: We will provide you the correspondence. Senator Duffy sent the correspondence only to members of Internal Economy.
Senator McCoy: Yes, of course. I'm a member today subbing for Senator Wallace. I'm not speaking on the subject matter, but I am speaking on the rules of natural justice and fairness of procedure. I do know that matters get adjourned.
The Chair: Senator McCoy, he can come before us at any time, as any senator can, so we certainly won't preclude him that opportunity. He can appear before us at any time, as any senator can.
Senator McCoy: He's not here today.
The Chair: That's clear.
An Hon. Senator: That's his choice.
Senator McCoy: Yes, well, I don't know the circumstances, but he's not here today.
Senator Campbell: Chair and members, I think we've spent enough time on Senator Duffy. Senator Duffy has an open invitation to come here any time he wants. He says he has grievances. We're prepared to listen to them. He has not availed himself at any time to come here. All we get are the demands and nobody recognizes that we answer his letters and we say, "Hey, come on down.'' This has been going on for I don't know how long.
With regard to natural justice, with all due respect, this is open to Senator Duffy, the same as any other senator. He just has refused to come down here and speak to us. We've wasted I don't know how much time here. This should be an easy decision. Yes, come on down, let us listen to you, bring your lawyer and let's discuss what's going on. He has chosen not to avail himself of that and I'm tired of it. This idea that he is hard done by by this committee with regard to being allowed to appear here is false and needs to be recognized as false. I suggest that it's open. If he wants to come down here, he's welcome. But let's move on from this. We're spending all of our time worrying about this and we're not getting any results.
The Chair: Colleagues, Item 5, just a point of information, the item has been removed from the agenda because upon further consultation, discussion and review we have come to the determination that the current truck we have might be up in years, but it certainly has a few more years ahead of it. We've come to the decision that we will maintain the current truck we have.
We'll go in camera now.
(The committee continued in camera.)