Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 9 - Minutes of Proceedings - May 28, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 6:40 p.m. to consider matters related to the Hon. Mike Duffy's Living Allowances in the NCR.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I see quorum. Honourable senators, I will call the meeting to order. I will start by a statement.
On May 21, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Claude Carignan, asked that the twenty- second report of Internal Economy be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for further consideration and report.
In making that reference, Senator Carignan stated that as far as the study of this report is concerned, given the facts that have been brought to our attention over the last few days, particularly with regard to the Ottawa living expense claims Senator Duffy was submitting when he was also submitting claims for expenses incurred during the election campaign, there were allegations of double billing. That job leading up to the twenty-second report was to see if Senator Duffy had claimed expenses for living in the National Capital Region that he should not have, pocketing taxpayer money he was not entitled to. If in fact we found that we had our task, our one and only task at the time was to get the money returned.
The Senate Administrative Rules state that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration shall be authorized to consider on its own initiative all financial and administrative matters concerning the Senate's internal administration and, subject to the Senate Administrative Rules, to act on all financial and administrative matters concerning the internal administration of the Senate and to interpret and determine the propriety of any use of Senate resources.
Colleagues, I think it is important to note that upon this report being referred back to us and in light of the additional information, we directed the clerk to do a review of the information it had on hand that relates to these new claims and all claims of a similar nature by Senator Duffy. They did that, and the clerk will report their findings.
Before he does, I want to state that it is highly unusual to hold a public meeting of the committee on matters such as that before us and, colleagues, as you are all aware, these are serious matters.
I will try to be a fair and reasonable chairman, and I hope that we conduct ourselves in a way that means business. We have business here to do.
Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not see Senator Duffy in the room. For the record, has Senator Duffy been notified of the time and place of this meeting and has there been response from him or his solicitor?
The Chair: Yes. I will ask our legal counsel to give the details of that. Yes, he was, but I will have him be more precise.
Michel Patrice, Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Yesterday I spoke to his legal counsel to inform him of the meeting taking place tonight after the Senate rises, and there was further communication late this afternoon asking confirmation in terms of where the meeting will take place.
Senator Furey: What was your last comment, Michel?
Mr. Patrice: There was further communication this afternoon. Senator Duffy wrote to the chair and the chair referred the email to the clerk of the committee, and the clerk of the committee replied to Senator Duffy's email.
Senator Furey: The communication was requesting the time and place of the meeting this evening?
Mr. Patrice: That is right. It was in relation to the time and place and what was the agenda of the meeting today and all of that. The report of the steering committee was provided to Senator Duffy.
Senator Furey: Do we have a record of the response to Senator Duffy?
Mr. Patrice: Yes, we would have a record of the response.
The Chair: I would like to repeat again that this is a highly unusual process, but it was Senator Duffy who publicly asked for a public forum, and we are providing it here today if he wants it.
I will start by going through the report of the steering committee of Internal Economy, which you have before you, to establish the agenda. I think you all have it there, the fourth report, Tuesday, May 28. I will go through it one, two, three and make sure we all agree that this is what we want to do.
One, that a summary of issues relating to Senator Duffy's travel claims prepared by the Clerk of the Senate be reviewed by the committee. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Two, that the committee consider additional wording for the twenty-second report in light of new information. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed. And that Internal Economy report to the Senate. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed. I will call on the clerk now to give his report.
[Translation]
Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: Honourable senators, my purpose is to present a report on Senator Duffy's travel claims, more specifically in relation to per diems claimed and reimbursed.
Following recent articles in the media, questions have been raised in relation to Senate funds being used during the 2011 election period. Additional analysis and review is required to verify those allegations and to establish if there are other areas of concern.
[English]
Deloitte reviewed cellular telephone and Senate travel card information to establish the location of Senator Duffy. Despite the fact that they were not able to meet with Senator Duffy, they indicated having been able to have Senator Duffy's location either confirmed or considered likely for 97 per cent of the period under examination. The only caveat was whether Senator Duffy was the sole user of the telephone on which they relied. Schedule 1 of the Deloitte report provides a summary of Senator Duffy's location during the period under review.
Section 6.3 of the Deloitte report states:
We identified one group of days where Senator Duffy submitted expense claims for per diems during a time period when he does not appear to have been in Ottawa.
This relates to the 12 days in Florida.
The Senate administration was asked to conduct a subsequent review of claims, specifically those related to the 2011 election period, March 25 to May 2, 2011. It showed that there were at least two other groups of days in April 2011 where Senator Duffy submitted expense claims and was paid for per diems in Ottawa during a time period when, according to the Deloitte report, he does not appear to have been in Ottawa.
This prompted a further review of all claims submitted during the April 2011 to September 2012 period. The review focused on per diems claimed and reimbursed under the Living in the National Capital Region expenses and/or the 64- point travel system.
The review was done using the following: Schedule 1 of the Deloitte report, which identifies Senator Duffy's location on every day during the review period; all travel claims submitted under both the Living in the NCR expenses, as well as under the 64-point travel system; financial system information to validate payments that were made for per diems under either the Living in the NCR expense budget or the 64-point travel system; and a review of notes on file.
The analysis portion of this briefing note contains a summary of concerns.
On March 26, 2013, all per diems paid to Senator Duffy for living expenses in the NCR were reimbursed to the Senate. Any finding in relation to per diems in the NCR would therefore not necessitate an additional reimbursement.
[Translation]
The following is a summary of concerns identified: the number of days of per diem claimed in Ottawa when Senator Duffy is reported by Deloitte to have been outside Ottawa.
Deloitte indicates in the report:
Our only restriction is that our analysis is based on the assumption regarding the telephone records and we have not been able to confirm with Senator Duffy, whether he was the sole user of the cell phone on which we relied.
Deloitte's internal assessment of cell phone records may include partial days outside Ottawa. The number of days for which, as I mentioned, per diems claimed in Ottawa when Senator Duffy is reported by Deloitte to have been outside Ottawa:
April 2011: 6 days claimed; paid, 6 days.
May 2011: 12 days claimed; paid, 12 days.
June 2011: 1 day claimed; not paid.
August 2011: 18 days claimed; not paid.
September 2011: 6 days claimed; paid, 3 days.
October 2011: 2 days claimed; paid, 1 day.
January 2012: 13 days claimed; paid, 12 days.
March 2012: 1 day claimed; paid, 1 day.
Total 49 days claimed; paid, 25 days.
[English]
Honourable senators, the following is a summary of concerns identified: Number of days of per diems claimed in Ottawa when Senator Duffy is reported by Deloitte to have been outside Ottawa.
Deloitte indicates in the report:
Our only restriction is that our analysis is based on the assumption regarding the telephone records and we have not been able to confirm with Senator Duffy whether he was the sole user of the telephone on which he relied.
Also, Deloitte's internal assessment of phone records may include partial days outside of Ottawa.
April 2011, six days claimed, paid six days.
May 2011, two days claimed, paid two days.
June 2011, one day claimed, not paid.
August 2011, 18 days claimed, not paid.
September 2011, six days claimed, paid three days.
October 2011, two days claimed, paid one day.
January 2012, 13 days claimed, paid 12 days.
March 2012, one day claimed, paid one day.
Total: 49 days; paid, 25 days.
[Translation]
The review leads to a conclusion that Deloitte's finding in relation to per diems claimed in January 2012 when the senator was in Florida is not an isolated incident, but rather represents a pattern that raises concerns. As shown in the above table, there were 49 days where per diem was claimed in Ottawa during a time period when, according to the Deloitte report, Senator Duffy does not appear to have been in Ottawa. Senator Duffy has never been interviewed in this regard.
This finding may merit the inclusion of one or more additional recommendations in the Twenty-Second Report.
[English]
To conclude, this review leads to a conclusion that the Deloitte finding in relation to per diems claimed in January 2012, when the senator was in Florida, is not an isolated incident; it represents a pattern that raises concerns. As shown in the above table, there were 49 days where per diems were claimed in Ottawa during a time period, according to the Deloitte report, that Senator Duffy does not appear to have been in Ottawa. Senator Duffy has never been interviewed in this regard.
This finding may merit the inclusion of one or more additional recommendations in the twenty-second report.
The Chair: We are going to proceed to questions. My normal manner has been to make a list as we go along, as senators identify. I will do the same thing again today; however, I want to go back and forth, if that is okay with senators, during the period of questions. I am more than willing to start with Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: Thank you, chair.
Mr. O'Brien, could you indicate for members of the committee what, if any, days that were claimed between April 2011 and March 2012 were claimed during the election period of 2011, i.e., during the writ period?
Mr. O'Brien: I will ask the Director of Finance to answer that question.
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: There were six days claimed in April 2011. The writ period was from March 25 to May 2, 2011, so there were six days in April 2011 claimed and paid, and one day in May claimed and paid.
Senator Furey: I noticed that in August of 2011, 18 days were claimed, but none were paid. Is that because Finance did not receive sufficient documentation for the claims?
Mr. O'Brien: As you said, Senator Furey, there were 18 days claimed in August 2011. They were not paid because we had a travel claim from Senator Duffy. We knew he was not in Ottawa. Therefore, we had conversations with his staff to re-establish that he was not in Ottawa. We had some empirical evidence, through a travel claim, that he was in Prince Edward Island.
Senator Furey: It was actually the Senate administration that discovered this and disallowed it.
Mr. O'Brien: That is correct.
Senator Furey: Thank you, chair.
Senator L. Smith: Chair, based on what we have heard, I would like to move that the twenty-second report be amended by the following recommendation:
That the Senate request the proper authorities to examine the matters dealt with in this report and related information, and;
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be authorized to refer such documents as it considers appropriate to the appropriate authorities for the purposes of the investigation.
From what we have heard — and obviously more discussion is required — I think it is important that there seems to be information here that requires further analysis above what our committee can do.
Senator Furey: On a point of order, chair, I do not disagree with Senator Smith. As a matter of fact, I agree with him. However, when we talk about the appropriate authorities, can we, for the sake of the record, specify who we are talking about? The RCMP?
Senator L. Smith: I would suggest that the RCMP would be the appropriate authorities, but trying to be delicate.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor.
Do we have a copy of that, Senator Smith? Do we have something we can hand out? We will have it open, if senators agree. I think we should have some discussion. I will read the motion. It is moved that the twenty-second report be amended by adding the following recommendation:
That the Senate request that the proper authorities examine the matters dealt with in this report and related information; and
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be authorized to refer such documents as it considers appropriate to the appropriate authorities for the purposes of the investigation.
We will have copies distributed, but, senators, why do we not just continue on? Are there any other senators who want to ask questions of Finance?
Senator Furey: I think it would be important to get input from all members of the committee who want to speak on this. I do not want to monopolize people's time, but I would like to go on your list, chair, to speak again to this as well.
The Chair: Thank you. I will put Senator Carignan on. We have Senator Marshall. I will go back and forth. Do any Liberal members wish to speak? Senator Cowan?
I went to Senator Furey, then I went to Senator Smith, so I will go back. Senator Furey, you win the lottery. You get to go again, then Senator Carignan, Senator Cowan, then Senator Marshall. Is that okay with senators?
Please proceed.
Senator Furey: I want to make a point. As I said, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague with respect to the motion he is proposing, but I want to go back to the twenty-second report. In my humble opinion, the report, as it has been tabled in the chamber, does not contain sufficient language to support the recommendation or the motion that this go forward. I think as a committee we must consider reintroducing some of the language we see in the other two reports to support this. I want that to be part of the discussion.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is a technical one for Ms. Proulx. I see that in April 2011— during the election campaign, that is — Senator Duffy claimed seven days of per diems when he was in Ottawa. When he claimed those per diems, it was not only because he was in Ottawa, but he was also engaged in Senate business. Is that correct?
Ms. Proulx: That is correct.
Senator Carignan: Okay. Did you dig a little deeper, not just looking to see whether the arithmetic is correct or whether the claims and the Deloitte report match up, but did you dig a little deeper into the nature of the Senate business? Let me use May 2011 as an example.
In May 2011, we had the election on May 2. The Speech from the Throne took place on June 3; the cabinet was appointed on May 18. So no committees had been formed and Senate business was on hold, waiting for Parliament to be recalled.
But there are 18 per diem claims in Ottawa and three for Senate business, but outside Ottawa. That means 21 days of work for the Senate when the Senate is not operating, but is waiting for the Speech from the Throne.
Is that how I am to see the month of May in terms of claims in the national capital region? Am I seeing things correctly?
Ms. Proulx: Going back to your first question, senator, for May, when senators claim travel to Ottawa, any time up to June 22, the purpose of the trip is not required. So, to the question of whether the report asked what the business in Ottawa was, we did not do that.
Senator Carignan: There is no requirement to explain the claim, but, in order to be entitled to it, we know that it has to be related to the Senate.
Ms. Proulx: Exactly. It has to be related to the Senate and the senator has to confirm that. That deals with the first question, which was whether we dug deeper in terms of the purpose.
In the current analysis, what was done was to look at all the per diem claims in Ottawa — under the 64-point system — and to compare that with the Deloitte report to see where the senator was on those dates.
That is the analysis that you have today, the report that you have before you today. For May 2011, Senator Duffy indeed claimed 20 days of per diems in total, and 20 were paid. If you look here, you see that his days in Ottawa match, except two —
[English]
Senator Cowan: I thought you just said that in May there were 20 days. I see here that it says two days. It says two days claimed, paid two days.
Senator Carignan: No.
Senator Cowan: That is what it says.
Senator Carignan: No. She will explain.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: In May 2011, what you have in your document are the days —
[English]
Senator Cowan: Let us start in April. How many days did he claim a per diem in April 2011?
Ms. Proulx: Six.
Senator Cowan: Six, and you paid six?
Senator Carignan: No.
Senator Cowan: That is what it says.
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Proulx: If I may?
Senator Cowan: May I ask a question?
The Chair: If he says it is okay, I am fine with it.
Senator Cowan: He is probably asking the same question.
The Chair: It is his turn. You are on the list next, so there will be no break in the question, I do not think.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I will come back later, because I have other questions.
[English]
Ms. Proulx: May I answer that question? What you have before you in the report that the clerk presented is only the number of days where there were per diems claimed in Ottawa and when Senator Duffy, in accordance with the Deloitte report, was not in Ottawa. It does not reflect all the per diems that were claimed. I have that, but it is not in this document.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: That has just raised the point that I wanted to make, that what has been presented is simply the number of days for which he submitted a claim in Ottawa. We know that he was not in Ottawa, but there are no other claims submitted where he is supposed to have been doing Senate work. But it clearly refers to a time when the Senate, Parliament, was not sitting, specifically in May 2011.
Ms. Proulx: Exactly.
Senator Carignan: And when he submitted his request in August, because in August, we can see that he was at his primary residence for almost the whole month, you declined the claim for 18 days because you knew, you had evidence, that he was at his primary residence in Prince Edward Island. Did you ask the senator: ``what is going on in your office? You are claiming days in Ottawa and, at the same time, you are claiming air tickets to go to Prince Edward Island, so you are in Prince Edward Island.'' It seems pretty obvious to me. Did you ask him what was going on in his office?
Ms. Proulx: In situations of this kind, naturally, we go back to the senator's office. In this case, there were claims that clearly indicated that the senator was in Charlottetown, that he was travelling at that time. We had a number of claims. We did communicate with the senator's office, but then the senator reacted and this particular claim was not paid. But the lesson we learned is to get information.
Senator Carignan: But you do not recall Senator Duffy's explanation of why ``I am claiming per diems in Ottawa at the same time as I am claiming plane tickets to get me to Charlottetown.''
Ms. Proulx: I looked through all the claim files and I did not see any note from Senator Duffy's office to explain why the claims were submitted.
[English]
Senator Cowan: That was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Chair. It would be helpful if we had information as to the total claims that were made during that period of time. I understand now. I just missed that point that these were only days when you knew or Deloitte knew he was away from Ottawa and yet he was claiming expenses for being in Ottawa.
Has this information in this form been provided to Senator Duffy?
The Chair: No, it has not.
Senator Marshall: Ms. Proulx, I am using Deloitte's report regarding Senator Duffy, and back in the schedule, it shows day by day where he is. Just to make sure I understand what I am looking at, if we look at April 2011, you say six days claimed and paid six days. Is that the six days that show up under ``Other locations - Senate Business''? Do you have the report? Which days are we talking about?
Ms. Proulx: The specific dates in the month of April 2011 are the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth of April.
Senator Marshall: Could you give us the dates for all of them? I do not need August because we did not pay them, but I would be interested in the other ones, May 2011. What days are they? I just want to make sure I understand which days. What were the days in May?
Mr. O'Brien: It is two days. I think one is May 1 — May 2, and the other one is May 24.
Ms. Proulx: Twenty-fifth. May 2 and May 25.
Senator Marshall: Just give me June, even though we did not pay it.
Ms. Proulx: June 6.
Senator Marshall: What about September?
Ms. Proulx: September 1, September 2, 9, 12, 13 and 21.
Senator Marshall: October?
Ms. Proulx: October 3 and October 6.
Senator Marshall: October 3 and October 6. Okay. January, I know.
What about March of 2012?
Ms. Proulx: March 23.
Senator Marshall: I do have some other questions. This chart only goes up to March 2012. Does that mean you looked right up to the current date but did not find anything after 2012?
Ms. Proulx: That is right. The review period was the same as the Deloitte report, April 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012, so the months that are not listed are because there were no per diems claimed in Ottawa where there was an issue with the location.
Senator Marshall: I understand, when you are responding to one of my colleagues, that you have not had discussions with Senator Duffy and we have not obtained any explanation from him as to the reason for this. Has there been discussion with Deloitte?
Ms. Proulx: No.
Senator Marshall: I may have some more questions after I check the dates.
Senator Cordy: I think we all agree with the motion that Senator Smith raised. Senator Cowan raised a similar one in the Senate chamber last week, and I am glad to see that we are all in agreement now that this investigation has to take place by the RCMP. I think that when we look at the discussion that we had so far, there certainly appears to be evidence of a pattern of Senator Duffy claiming expenses when he was not here in Ottawa. The RCMP will be investigating that.
Going back to a comment made by Senator Furey earlier, the twenty-second report, really, I do not think is sufficient to give to the RCMP, that we need comments added to that when we send this forward to the RCMP.
What we have learned over the past couple of weeks is more than just Senator Duffy and his expenses. What we have learned also was that there appears to have been interference by the Prime Minister's Office. We know that, chair, you have spoken that you had discussions with Nigel Wright. Others have said that they have spoken with Nigel Wright and others in the Prime Minister's Office, so I would assume that that would be part of the RCMP investigation in what we would put forward to the RCMP, that they would then look at that issue as well, the interference by the Prime Minister's Office in the investigation by this committee.
The Chair: Are you finished, Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: That was a question.
The Chair: To whom?
Senator Cordy: Well, I guess it was a question to you or to the committee as whole.
Certainly, also, I was extremely surprised to discover that a cheque for over $90,000 had been written by Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to pay Senator Duffy's expenses. We have an understanding from the media and from Senator Duffy that there was an agreement between Senator Duffy and the Prime Minister's office regarding the $90,000 cheque, that he would be given the cheque and that things would be made easy on him. Now, we heard Senator Duffy say that. I do not know; I have not seen an agreement. Would the RCMP also have access to those kinds of documents and speak to Nigel Wright and to Senator Duffy and to others in the Prime Minister's Office who may have been spoken to by members of this committee?
The Chair: I think we have authority to deal with Senator Duffy. We are going to deal with Senator Duffy.
Senator Stewart Olsen.
Senator Cordy: Is that a no?
The Chair: I did not say anything. You have made your comments. You have made your point. Unless you something more to add, I will ask Senator Stewart Olsen if she may have some questions.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you, chair. I have a couple of questions for Finance, please.
For me, on reviewing this and with these additional claims that were not obvious to us, you would consider that to be a clear pattern. Is that something that you would identify to us in the future as a pattern of spending that perhaps we should be looking at?
Ms. Proulx: Provided that we have the information that the senator is claiming when he is not in Ottawa, it would be identified. Because a number of them, the only reason we are able to identify that it was not appropriate is because Deloitte locates the senator elsewhere; but, yes, in terms of having this type of pattern, it would be raised for sure.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I think that a good deal of this will be perhaps solved by the changes to the rules in reporting the expenses and some of the changes that we have made and voted on today in the chamber.
Just because it may not be clear to people why these were missed, without the audit, you would not have had the ``cross-checkability,'' and so I think it is important that Canadians understand the reason that these were missed, were not able to identify this, and that we can move forward, hopefully, on issues like this.
The Chair: Are we all done, senator?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: I have you down, Senator Cordy, but Senator Downe has not yet spoken.
Senator Downe: Thank you, chair. I just wanted to clarify. The report that we have indicates that in April 2006 [sic] — there were six days claimed and six days paid, but in the dates you gave, I notice April 21 was not included as one of those days; is that correct?
Ms. Proulx: Yes, it is correct. April 21 is not included because the report only shows when a per diem that was claimed in Ottawa, and on April 21, there was no per diem claimed in Ottawa.
Senator Downe: I am looking at the audit report, and according to my copy, on Thursday, April 21, 2011, it says ``Ottawa - Senate Business (including per diem)''. Does that mean a per diem was claimed that day?
Ms. Proulx: The per diem was claimed but for a travel day, so it was under the 64-point travel.
Senator Downe: But it does not show up as part of your six days?
Ms. Proulx: No, because it was not claimed in the NCR. You know how there are two components?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: So the claims for per diems in the NCR, you really have to be in Ottawa and it is not a travel day. Any travel day would be charged — should be charged to the 64 points. So on April 21, Senator Duffy had a trip, Moncton to Ottawa, returning to Ottawa, and that had a partial per diem claimed and paid but on the 64 points, not in the NCR.
Senator Downe: There was a report in the Toronto Star on May 22, 2013, filed by Joanna Smith, and I would like to quote it:
The new details of apparent double-dipping are contained in documents from Elections Canada that include invoices Duffy submitted to the 11 local Conservative campaigns he helped out during the last federal election.
The invoices show that Duffy arrived in Truro, N.S., on April 20 that year, spent the night in a hotel and then campaigned the next day with Conservative MP Scott Armstrong there and in Amherst, N.S.
According to this reporter who has reviewed the Elections Canada document, Senator Duffy that day was campaigning. He submitted a bill for some of his expenses to the various campaigns, and at the same time, he was claiming Senate government business on the very same date when he left Moncton, obviously, from Amherst.
Ms. Proulx: Obviously, when the claim was processed back in 2011, that is not information that Finance had in its possession. For that trip, Moncton to Ottawa, Senator Duffy was paid lunch and incidentals on that day.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
The Chair: It is possible, as you know, Senator Downe, to claim a partial per diem if you are only travelling for part of the day, so you could get two per diems, I suppose. I do not know.
Senator Downe: But, chair, you cannot claim a per diem if you are not on Senate business.
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Downe: According to Elections Canada, he submitted expenses for hotels and various things. It appeared he was campaigning. What would his Senate business be between Amherst and the Moncton airport before he got a flight back to Ottawa?
The Chair: That is a question to be asked, exactly.
Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: No, I will pass. I am just looking at some of the information that Senator Downe had mentioned.
The Chair: Do you want a moment to think about this?
Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: I am just wondering, in Senator L. Smith's motion, the part that says ``related information,'' I assume — well, I do not assume. That is wrong.
Would the related information include the Mounties looking at the $90,000 payment? Would that be part of the related information found within here? If it is not, then I will amend this to make sure that it is in there. If we are going to do an RCMP investigation, let us do an RCMP investigation on everything involving this issue.
The Chair: Let us go back to that motion.
Senator Campbell: I am looking at the part where it says —
The Chair: It says ``in this report and related information'' and ``That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration . . . .''
Senator Campbell: I am going on the related information because everything to do with the payment — we knew about the payment, but everything to do with more involvement came out after. I think it is related information. I think it would be doing a disservice to everybody if we did not have that in there, that the police understood that this is an investigation; it is not a narrow investigation dealing with 18 days. It is much bigger than that.
The Chair: I understand. Yes.
That is your intent, Senator L. Smith?
Senator L. Smith: Chair, it is my understanding the issue related to Elections Canada and the Wright payment is not in the mandate necessarily of our committee. Therefore, it would appear that if it is not in the purview of what we are charged with — and we are asking the RCMP to investigate. The RCMP is going to go after the information that they need to go after to really analyze the case.
Senator Campbell: As a former RCMP officer, I can tell you that when you start down a road like this, there are many branches that go off it. I am loath to say all you are going to do is look at expenses dealing with what we have here. I think there is a demand on the part of the public to know about this.
Rather than have an investigation into expenses and then we have another, this involves Senator Duffy and expenses. Part of those expenses and the thing that Senator Duffy was so proud of was that he paid this back in March before everyone else. I can tell you, the subcommittee, when we looked at Senator Harb and Senator Brazeau, took that into consideration when we said, ``So what should these people do?'' Senator Duffy had set the tone. I think that in doing that, we all came to certain conclusions, and now we know that perhaps there is something different there.
I am not saying there was anything going on. I am not saying it is any more complicated than a friend giving a friend money. I am not saying that. All I am saying is that it should be investigated in this context, and at the end of day, then, we have all our answers, or we are going to be back here again.
Senator Stewart Olsen: May I ask a point of clarification to Senator Campbell?
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Stewart Olsen: How would we do that? I am not certain if it is overstepping our bounds or how we would —
Senator Campbell: I think the mandate is that they investigate all issues pertaining to Senator Duffy's expenses, including his payback to the government in March, and then they take it where they may want to take it.
Senator L. Smith: Not being an RCMP person, I thought that maybe the RCMP would look at what has been reported, the facts, and then they would make their own assumptions based on the fact —
Senator Campbell: They will. No, I am not trying to get involved in the investigation. All I am saying is that we have to let them know that here are the issues that we have, and then let them go and do their investigation. They report back and whatever happens, happens.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Senator Carignan. After you, Senator Carignan, I am going to go back to Senator Munson, not that I have forgotten about you, Senator Cordy, but if you have new people on your side, I am going to go to them first, okay? Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is about January 2012. In January 2012, Senator Duffy claimed 12 days of per diems on the basis that he was in Ottawa. But Deloitte indicated that he was in Florida. He sent a letter on April 18, and parts of it are reproduced in the Deloitte report. In it, he writes:
Following our informal conversation, Tuesday evening, I went through my files for January 2012. I discovered that, through a clerical error, per diems were inadvertently charged for several days when I was not in the National Capital Region. My regular staff person was away on maternity leave and a temporary worker processed that claim.
Did you notice any particular clerical errors in any of these cases, any corrections, any crossings-out on the form Senator Duffy submitted for these claims?
Ms. Proulx: Yes, clearly, I think the report shows that. If we look at the month of June, for example, when a day was claimed but not paid, it is because there was a travel claim and we had a discussion with the senator's office. It was corrected and coded under the 64-point system. There were a few situations like that where discussions and conversations went on with the senator's office.
Senator Carignan: To your knowledge, was the employee who did the work in April and May 2011 his regular employee or a temporary person replacing her?
Ms. Proulx: To my knowledge, it was his regular employee.
Senator Carignan: It was his regular employee?
Ms. Proulx: From what I can see here. I would have to check with human resources.
Senator Carignan: As Senator Stewart Olsen said, it matters little whether it was a temporary employee or the regular one; there is a pattern of irregular claims.
Ms. Proulx: Yes, there is. Two people were there during the period when the report was done. So those two people dealt with the claims.
Senator Carignan: All those claims, on the usual forms that each senator signs —
Ms. Proulx: Yes.
Senator Carignan: — to attest to the accuracy of the information, and is signed, dated and submitted; all those forms were signed by Senator Duffy?
Ms. Proulx: Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Munson: I have two questions. One is a point of clarification on the motion or amendment or recommendation from Senator Smith. I need to know more. What laws would have been broken, or may have been broken, to require this to go to the RCMP? Just for the public to understand and know, in layman's terms. We are walking around the issue, and I would love to know —
Senator L. Smith: I do not think we are walking around the issue, senator. What is important here is that there has been an identification based on information that this should go to a different level of evaluation and review, which is the authorities, which is the RCMP. The RCMP will then probably take what we have provided, create their own search and build whatever case they see fit.
Senator Munson: Perhaps our legal counsel could give me an idea on double-dipping.
Mr. Patrice: It would be very difficult, senator, without a proper investigation to determine what possible infractions or offences have been made.
Senator Munson: All right. Second question: There is only one person who can really answer all of these questions, chair, and he is not here. In the interest of due process, will we give Senator Duffy an opportunity to be here? Are we going to rush, like we did the last time, to have these reports move quickly into the Senate and have the Senate pass them? Will Senator Duffy be given an opportunity to be here? He has said he welcomes a public inquiry. Perhaps he cannot be here tonight because his lawyers are not ready to be with him to give him assistance.
I sincerely hope that we will not go through this process tonight and just quickly say, ``Okay, we have this, and let us pass this amendment.'' I think that Senator Duffy deserves an opportunity to be heard.
The Chair: Did you have a point to make, Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a point about the legal matter of due process. I feel that Senator Duffy was advised that his expenses were being examined. The report has been done. We would not have this meeting; we would find things, and call 911 right away. We do not need to hear from people when irregularities of this kind are found, irregularities that are serious enough for the authorities, the police, to be called. It seems to me that we do not need a due process to do that.
As to the report itself, the committee is going to report to the Senate. The Senate will adopt the report if it decides that it is appropriate to do so and Senator Duffy will be able to tell us his side of the story. It is the same kind of argument that we dealt with just now about the matter of privilege for Senator Harb and that we dealt with last week about the matter of privilege for Senator Cowan and for Senator Harb once again.
[English]
Senator Furey: I asked at the beginning if, in fact, Senator Duffy had been notified. I was very distinct in terms of when and where the meeting was and how he had been notified, and I am satisfied that he has had every opportunity to be here. If he is not here, it is by choice. When a report of this full committee goes to the chamber, he will have another opportunity to partake in any discussions on it, so I do not see that that is a problem.
Senator Marshall: Ms. Proulx, just clarify something for me. I am going to take April 2011 as an example. Senator Downe just shared the article with me where it looks like April 21 when Senator Duffy claimed maybe a partial per diem, but he was also campaigning, so I take it we possibly missed that one. That is a possibility, is it not, that we did not pick everything up?
Ms. Proulx: On that particular day, like I said, no per diem was claimed in Ottawa. The focus of this report is to identify when there were per diems claimed in Ottawa where the Deloitte report located the senator elsewhere. On April 21 he is located in Ottawa. What we have paid is a partial per diem for his return trip from Moncton to Ottawa. It was on the 64 points.
Senator Marshall: On what day was that?
Ms. Proulx: On the twenty-first. The claim stated as the purpose that he had gone for a meeting in the region and in New Brunswick. There was no information that would have alerted us.
Senator Marshall: If we look at April 5, for example, where you are indicating that there is a problem with April 5, Deloitte, in their report, have simply highlighted it as ``Other location - Senate Business.'' Why did we come to the conclusion that that one is a problem?
Ms. Proulx: This one, senator, we do have a claim for a per diem in Ottawa for the period of April 5 to April 8. It was claimed and it was paid. When we look at the Deloitte report, now that we have that information, they verified the cellphone records and the credit card, and we see that Senator Duffy is actually in another location; he is not in Ottawa. We paid in Ottawa, but he was not in Ottawa.
Senator Marshall: Deloitte never picked that up, did they?
Jill Anne Joseph, Director, Internal Audit/Strategic Planning, Senate of Canada: They picked it up, but they did not mention it. They only mentioned Miami.
The Chair: Do you have something else to add?
Ms. Proulx: On a point of clarification to Senator Carignan's question earlier.
The Chair: Go right ahead; the clearer, the better.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: You asked me if it was a temporary employee. I thought you were talking about April. I just want to clarify which month you were referring to just now.
Senator Carignan: In his letter, he explained that his regular employee was on maternity leave in January 2012 and that the temporary employee prepared the claim. He was explaining the error on the part of an employee who was not used to doing that job.
I wanted to see if, in April 2011, it was his regular employee, the one used to preparing claims.
Ms. Proulx: Okay, in April 2011, it was the regular employee. In January 2012, it was not.
Senator Carignan: Great.
[English]
Senator Cordy: We do have to remember that regardless of who filled out the form, Senator Duffy had to sign every expense form that he would agree with it. We cannot forget that these were not just sent in by a temporary staffer; he actually signed them, as we all sign our own and check them over carefully.
I want to make a few comments. Like Senator Campbell, I am certainly loath to limit the scope of the RCMP investigation. Canadians are justifiably furious. They deserve answers, and the RCMP should not be limited in the scope of their investigation.
In terms of Senator Stewart Olsen's concern that the committee not overstep its bounds, quite honestly, Canadians do not care about the bounds. They do not care about the boundaries.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I do not think we can tell the RCMP what to do. The scope will be —
Senator Cordy: I think we can give them a pretty wide scope. Canadians want answers; Canadians deserve answers. How this came to be that this amount of money was claimed, in what seems to be an illegal way, I think Canadians deserve answers. I would not want to be part of any committee that would limit the scope of the RCMP investigation.
The Chair: We do not have any on this side, so Senator Cowan.
Senator Cowan: I just wanted to go back to the point that Senator Furey made earlier, chair, about the language. You and I had a discussion in the chamber today about the differences in the reports. I think your point was that the language about the form being clear and the underlying policies being unambiguous, which was in the Harb and Brazeau reports, was not in this report. You felt that the fact of repayment, you did not need to address that. However, I think Senator Duffy has been reported in the press as saying that he feels he has now been exonerated by the language of the Deloitte report.
If the committee — and I was not part of the discussion earlier — feels that the declaration form is clear and that the language is unambiguous, then, I think after further reflection it might be appropriate to put that language back in the twenty-second report because that will buttress the refusal of the committee to refund the money to Senator Duffy. I think it is appropriate to put that language or similar language back in if the committee feels, as it did in the cases of Senators Harb and Brazeau, that the form was clear and the language was clear.
The Chair: I have Senator Carignan on the list and then I have Senator Furey on the list.
Senator Stewart Olsen, did you want to be on the list as well?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, please. I was just going to respond to Senator Cowan.
The Chair: I will put you both on the list, then. I have Senator Campbell on the list as well.
Go ahead, Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Perhaps in response to Senator Cowan: the file has evolved. First of all, we were dealing with primary versus secondary residence; with the definition of ``primary'' and ``secondary'' residence. It is not the same file now. Now we are dealing with a senator being able to claim when he is on Senate business, in the national capital region, within 100 km. He can claim when he is on Senate business.
Now we are dealing with a senator who submits claims when he is not within 100 km. The GPS was not working properly, I suppose. He is outside the 100 km range and he is submitting claims.
This is no longer about primary or secondary residences. This is about ``am I within 100 km of the national capital region and am I conducting business as a senator? Am I, on this day, doing my job as a senator?''
We have some very distressing facts about where he was when he made a claim for the national capital. But he was in Charlottetown. A claim for the national capital; but he was in Florida. A claim for the national capital; but he was somewhere else in the country campaigning in the election.
So we are no longer dealing with the concepts of primary and secondary residence. We are dealing with things that can be checked. We can always argue about the definition, but 97 per cent of senators understand where their primary residence is. You can always say that the rules may or may not be clear. We have three per cent who do not understand. But knowing whether or not you are 100 km from the national capital seems much clearer to me. It raises a lot of questions for me. I am really surprised with the direction the file has taken and that is why I am going to support Senator Smith's motion.
So I am not sure that looking at the wording and saying that the definition is not clear is relevant when we are dealing with the questions ``am I within 100 km of the national capital'' and ``when I am within 100 km of the national capital, am I conducting business as a senator?''
So forgive me if I have serious doubts. In an election campaign, after the election campaign in May, when the Senate is not sitting and when the cabinet has not met, or even been appointed. The Speech from the Throne was on June 3. I am having real trouble with this. Perhaps you can answer correspondence for a couple of days, say. But 20 days — That is going much too far.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Cowan, you are done, right?
Senator Cowan: If you say so, sir.
The Chair: Okay. Senator Furey.
I do not mind a little back and forth.
Senator Cowan: No, that is fine. I'll let Senator Furey go ahead and perhaps you could put me on the list.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Furey: I agree with your last comment in respect of Senator L. Smith's motion, Senator Carignan, but I disagree with everything that went before that. This report is based on an examination of Senator Duffy's primary and secondary residence, prepared by Deloitte. The language of the report tabled in the chamber does not support us going forward with reporting this to the police. The language has to be strengthened; there is no question about that.
Mr. Chair, I am going to move a series of amendments to the report. One is an amendment to the motion proposed by Senator L. Smith. As we are going to continue discussing this, I think we should put those amendments on the table now and see what people have to say about them.
The first one is, with respect to the motion, if you look at the first sentence, ``That the Senate request that the proper authorities examine the matters dealt with in this report and related information,'' I propose that we amend, by adding after ``information,'' ``including Senator Duffy's repayment of $90,000 to the Government of Canada.'' Then the rest of it would continue as is.
The second amendment will be to the actual report in terms of its language. If we look at the report as it was tabled, page 2 —
The Chair: I do not mean to interfere with your train of thought, but we have a motion on the floor and you have made an amendment to that motion.
Senator Furey: Okay. Let us deal with that first.
The Chair: I do not mind if you want to speak to that amendment that you made. I cannot believe I am giving you advice on how this — but you might want to talk about the other amendments without making them, if you want to do that. We can then have general discussion overall. We will see where it all goes and how we feel and maybe call a little break, or whatever.
Senator Furey: Basically, chair, I just wanted to throw it all out since we are going to continue a general discussion, but if you want to handle it by dealing with my amendment to the motion first, then I will come back and propose my amendments to the other parts of the report. How is that?
The Chair: Okay. I think we could do that.
We have an amendment to the motion now on the floor, which is an amendment to include the payment made by Senator Duffy. Is that not correct? Is there any discussion on this matter?
Senator L. Smith: Just a little point. Conceptually, I do not have a problem with that. The reason we put in broad language is because when you start defining in a document what you can evaluate, then you limit — there are two ways of looking at it, Senator Campbell. We wanted to have the broadest possible definition. The idea of having the $90,000 is not a problem, but maybe you might risk that you are starting to limit it. If you put in two or three things, what about the fourth, the fifth and the sixth?
Senator Furey: You make a good point, but that is why I used the language ``including.''
Senator L. Smith: Conceptually, I do not have a problem with this.
The Chair: I will defer to the Speaker, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Kinsella: Through you, chair, to Senator Furey. Your amendment would come after the word ``information,'' so that ``The Senate requests that the proper authorities examine the matters dealt with in this report and related information, including . . . .''
Senator Furey: Yes.
Senator Kinsella: That is where it fits in. It seems to me that covers Senator L. Smith's —
Senator Furey: Yes.
The Chair: Anybody else?
Senator Marshall: I have another question.
The Chair: I have you on the list. I am dealing with the amendment, so I will just go back to the same speaker's list, and if you do not want to speak to the amendment, then I will allow you to speak to the main motion as well as the amendment.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Senator Furey, just to support what you are doing, I think I am fully supportive. I think in light of the recent information, things that have come to our attention and the fact-finding that we did, I am fine with strengthening the report and certainly having a look at the amendments that you are going to be proposing to go forward.
Senator Furey: Thank you.
Senator Campbell: I want to go back to these reports. All of the senators involved are all hanging their hats on the Deloitte audit report. I think we should realize that audits are for information, and information to the committee or whoever contracted them to do the work. For some reason, everyone is hanging their hats on the Deloitte audit. We found no discrepancies with what a ``residence'' was. We thought that the evidence did not support it, and that is what we stated.
Now, I know this will seem a little strange, but in the case of Senator Duffy, this was, in fact, different; before we knew about the payment, it was in fact different. We are all saying, ``Well, he stepped up; he made the payment.'' When we look at that report, I know that there are questions about how it came to that, but if you look at the consequence of events, you can see that there was a difference.
This idea that the audit of Deloitte is the be-all and end-all, we have got to get over that and past that. It is just one piece of evidence that comes in there when we consider it, and we keep throwing it out back there again and it gets all muddled up.
An Hon. Senator: We are past that.
Senator Campbell: No, we are not past that; we were just talking about it yet again — that is why I asked the question.
That is just my comment on the reports.
Senator Marshall: What was the maximum living allowance that could be claimed from April 2011 to March 2012?
Ms. Proulx: At the time, it was $20,000, and senators were able to charge to the unused portion of the miscellaneous expenditure account up to $25,000.
Senator Marshall: What would being be the max that they used up? So it could be as high as $25,000.
Ms. Proulx: It could have gone to $25,000, and then that was reduced to $22,000.
Senator Tardif: I have a point of clarification. Having suggested that the words ``the proper authorities'' in the motion by Senator L. Smith be changed to ``the RCMP,'' has that been retained as a suggestion?
The Chair: We could. The reason we used ``proper authorities'' is because there is some precedent to that. I think it is obvious. I think, if you do not mind, we will leave it there; I think everyone knows what it means. We will have a full discussion about this in the Senate, I am sure.
Does anybody else want to speak to the amendment?
There is a question on the amendment. Mr. Clerk, would you like to read the amendment and we will go to the vote?
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Furey to add the following after the words ``related information'': ``including Senator Duffy's repayment of $90,000 to the Government of Canada.''
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Unanimous?
Hon. Senators: Unanimous.
The Chair: Now we will go to the main motion. If there is no further discussion, I will call for the question.
Senator Cowan: I think Senator Furey said he had additional amendments to make.
The Chair: I thought they were to the report, so we will deal with that was a separate issue. We are going back to the main motion, and then I am sure you have other motions, Senator Furey, and we will get to talk about them, too.
Let us go to the main motion. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed?
Unanimous. The motion carries.
Senator Furey, you had other amendments to make — or motions to make.
Senator Furey: I actually wanted to move three amendments to the twenty-second report. You talked about taking a five-minute break. Would this be an appropriate time, so I can try to get the wording of this reduced?
The Chair: We might have some discussions, as well, Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: Absolutely.
The Chair: I will ask for a 15-minute break, if that is okay, colleagues. It is five to the hour. Why do we not reconvene at ten after? Do not be late.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, Senator Furey has some amendments in light of the new information we heard about the actual payment, which followed our report. We have had some discussion on perhaps putting some of the items back into the report that we had taken out in consideration of Senator Duffy making full payment of his Ottawa expenses. I would like to note that he has made full payment of his Ottawa expenses in that time period of 18 months.
Senator Furey, if you could just go through what you want to put in versus what was there before and explain it to committee members, we will go from there and be fine.
Senator Furey: I have two amendments that I would like to make to the report.
The Chair: To the report itself.
Senator Furey: Yes.
The Chair: This might be a good process for the media to see.
Senator Furey: At page 2 of the report, the last paragraph says:
Your Committee acknowledges Deloitte's finding that criteria for determining primary residence are lacking and this is being addressed by your Committee.
I would add after that:
However, 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 Subcommittee 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.
At page 3, before it says ``Your Committee therefore recommends,'' I would add:
It is therefore the conclusion of the Subcommittee that based on the evidence presented in the examination report, while recognizing that Senator Duffy owns a residence in P.E.I. and spends considerable time there, his continued presence at his Ottawa residence over the years does not support such a declaration and is, therefore, contrary to the plain meaning of the word ``primary'' and to the purpose and intent of the provisions of the Living Allowance in the NCR.
Senator Carignan: Could you read slowly because the interpretation is not working properly?
Senator Furey: I apologize, Senator Carignan.
The Chair: Is the interpretation not working or can they not keep up? Okay. They cannot keep up.
Senator Furey: Are you good until page 3? Before it says ``Your Committee therefore recommends,'' I would add the paragraph:
It is therefore the conclusion of this Subcommittee that based on the evidence presented in the examination report, while recognizing that Senator Duffy owns a residence in P.E.I. and spends considerable time there, his continued presence at his Ottawa residence over the years does not support such a declaration and is contrary to the plain meaning of the word ``primary'' and to the purpose and intent of the provisions of the Living Allowance in the NCR.
The Chair: That is it?
Senator Furey: That is it.
The Chair: Discussion?
Senator Comeau: Senator Furey, could you explain? You are saying that it is therefore the conclusion of the subcommittee. We are no longer a subcommittee. The subcommittee members were you, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Stewart Olsen.
Senator Furey: I am sorry; I was reading from a different version. That should be ``committee''; my apologies. Thank you, Senator Comeau; you are right.
The Chair: We have clarified that. It is this committee we are talking about.
Are there any other questions? Do we have a copy of that, Senator Furey?
Senator Furey: I can get it for you. I can give it to the clerk of the committee when we are through.
The Chair: We have two sections that we are talking about. Why do we not do one at a time and agree. Read slowly and let us just redo it one more time so that we are all clear. Is that okay, colleagues?
Senator Furey: At page 2, the last paragraph of the report says:
Your Committee acknowledges Deloitte's finding that criteria for determining primary residence are lacking and this is being addressed by your Committee.
I suggest adding:
However, to claim living expenses in the NCR, 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.
The Chair: Okay, are we good? All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Furey: The second one, chair, if you go to page 3 of the report, at the end of the first paragraph and before the sentence ``Your committee therefore recommends,'' add the following:
It is therefore the conclusion of this Committee that based on the evidence presented in the examination report, while recognizing that Senator Duffy owns a residence in P.E.I. and spends considerable time there, his continued presence at his Ottawa residence over the years does not support such a declaration and is, therefore, contrary to the plain meaning of the word ``primary'' and to the purpose and intent of the provisions of Living Allowance in the NCR.
The Chair: Questions?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Mr. Patrice, what is your feeling on the last amendment that was moved? I am fine with it; I just want to make sure that legally we are okay.
Senator Cowan: It is basically the same wording as in the Harb and Brazeau reports.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I just want to make sure.
Senator Carignan: We have a confidential version. Is this the same as we have seen?
Mr. Patrice: It is not the same, senator.
Yes, it is consistent with the other two reports that have been presented.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Great, thank you very much.
Senator Comeau: As to the question of primary residence, I would have to go back, but we did pass a report today in the Senate that basically changes the wording of those kinds of accommodations. Does the wording ``primary residence'' still form a part of our — based on what was passed today?
Senator Furey: The changes that were made today would have been on a go-forward basis. This pertains to what was in existence at the time of the report.
Senator Comeau: We are not passing something. This is a brand new report that we are doing.
Senator Furey: Yes, but the language is consistent with the rules that were in effect when the evidence for this report was gathered, not with the new language.
Senator Comeau: Okay.
The Chair: Are we good? Do we have any more questions on the second paragraph? If not, all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you, Senator Furey.
Now we will need a motion to report, as amended. I need a motion to report. Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: No, I want to ask a question before I move a motion. Are we going to amend the report to take into consideration what we decided here tonight with regard to referring Senator Duffy's expenses to the proper authorities, or are we just —
The Chair: We have done that.
Senator Marshall: It is already in there, is it?
The Chair: It is in there.
Senator Marshall: It is in there. Okay.
The Chair: I need a motion to report.
Thank you, Senator Marshall, Senator Munson.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
(The committee adjourned.)