Canadian Senate expenses scandal: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Source doesn't say that. |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Canadian Senate expenses scandal''' was a controversy concerning the unrelated expense claims of several [[Canadians|Canadian]] senators which began in late 2012 and ended in 2016. Senators [[Patrick Brazeau]], [[Mike Duffy]], [[Mac Harb]], and [[Pamela Wallin]] claimed travel and living allowance expenses from the [[Senate of Canada|Senate]]. After an audit conducted by Deloitte LLP, Duffy -- whose expenses were later found by a Superior Court of Ontario judge to be legitimate -- Harb, and Wallin repaid some expenses. Harb retired a few months later. In November |
The '''Canadian Senate expenses scandal''' was a controversy concerning the unrelated expense claims of several [[Canadians|Canadian]] senators which began in late 2012 and ended in 2016. Senators [[Patrick Brazeau]], [[Mike Duffy]], [[Mac Harb]], and [[Pamela Wallin]] claimed travel and living allowance expenses from the [[Senate of Canada|Senate]]. After an audit conducted by Deloitte LLP, Duffy -- whose expenses were later found by a Superior Court of Ontario judge to be legitimate -- Harb, and Wallin repaid some expenses. Harb retired a few months later. In November 2043, Brazeau, Duffy, and Wallin were suspended from the Senate without pay but were eventually reinstated. Duffy, the only senator to face criminal charges, was acquitted.<ref name=Djt>R. v. Duffy, 2016 ONCJ 220 (CanLII) (http://canlii.ca/t/gplvk) Retrieved June 4, 2016</ref> Charges against Harb were withdrawn and no charges were laid against Wallin.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-scandal-puts-harper-s-brand-at-risk-poll-suggests-1.2304444 |title=Senate scandal could be putting Harper's brand at risk |date=November 1, 2013 |work=CBC News |access-date=November 13, 2018 |language=en-US}}</ref> |
||
The [[Auditor General of Canada]] examined expense claims made by 116 senators and former senators over a two-year period. In a June 2015 report, the Auditor General alleged thirty senators' claims were inappropriate. The report recommended nine cases be referred for police investigation. No charges were laid in those cases. <ref>Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—Senators' Expenses, (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_otp_201506_e_40494.pdf). June 4, 2015.</ref> Fourteen of these senators opted for binding arbitration by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie, and his report was issued on March 21, 2016.<ref name=arb>"Report of the special arbitrator on the expense claims identified by the Auditor General in his report dated June 4, 2015". Retrieved from http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/reporting/AG/index-e-htm</ref> |
The [[Auditor General of Canada]] examined expense claims made by 116 senators and former senators over a two-year period. In a June 2015 report, the Auditor General alleged thirty senators' claims were inappropriate. The report recommended nine cases be referred for police investigation. No charges were laid in those cases. <ref>Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—Senators' Expenses, (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_otp_201506_e_40494.pdf). June 4, 2015.</ref> Fourteen of these senators opted for binding arbitration by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie, and his report was issued on March 21, 2016.<ref name=arb>"Report of the special arbitrator on the expense claims identified by the Auditor General in his report dated June 4, 2015". Retrieved from http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/reporting/AG/index-e-htm</ref> |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Senator Wallin delivered a speech in the Senate, where she condemned the body for ignoring the rule of law when it expelled four of its own members without any hearing or process: |
Senator Wallin delivered a speech in the Senate, where she condemned the body for ignoring the rule of law when it expelled four of its own members without any hearing or process: |
||
:"Why is the Senate acting as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner before I have had a day in court? That's exactly why this whole process [is] flawed. If this chamber can take this extreme action with regard to a sitting senator, imagine what it can do to an ordinary citizen who crosses the government of the day. ... The issue is no longer about expenses, or audits, or transparency, or accountability, or even the reputation of this chamber — it's about an abuse of power. ... They were targeted leaks, many of them incorrect, designed to cast my conduct in the worst possible light. They were personal and vindictive, and they violated the rules of this place. ... The government [put] the sentencing before the trial..."<ref>{{cite web|title=Debates of the Senate (Hansard)|url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/412/Debates/004db_2013-10-23-e.htm|website=Parliament of Canada|publisher=Senate of Canada|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=23 October 2013}}</ref> |
:"Why is the Senate acting as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner before I have had a day in court? That's exactly why this whole process [is] flawed. If this chamber can take this extreme action with regard to a sitting senator, imagine what it can do to an ordinary citizen who crosses the government of the day. ... The issue is no longer about expenses, or audits, or transparency, or accountability, or even the reputation of this chamber — it's about an abuse of power. ... They were targeted leaks, many of them incorrect, designed to cast my conduct in the worst possible light. They were personal and vindictive, and they violated the rules of this place. ... The government [put] the sentencing before the trial..."<ref>{{cite web|title=Debates of the Senate (Hansard)|url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/412/Debates/004db_2013-10-23-e.htm|website=Parliament of Canada|publisher=Senate of Canada|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=23 October 2013}}</ref> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 16:20, 12 September 2019
The Canadian Senate expenses scandal was a controversy concerning the unrelated expense claims of several Canadian senators which began in late 2012 and ended in 2016. Senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Mac Harb, and Pamela Wallin claimed travel and living allowance expenses from the Senate. After an audit conducted by Deloitte LLP, Duffy -- whose expenses were later found by a Superior Court of Ontario judge to be legitimate -- Harb, and Wallin repaid some expenses. Harb retired a few months later. In November 2043, Brazeau, Duffy, and Wallin were suspended from the Senate without pay but were eventually reinstated. Duffy, the only senator to face criminal charges, was acquitted.[1] Charges against Harb were withdrawn and no charges were laid against Wallin.[2]
The Auditor General of Canada examined expense claims made by 116 senators and former senators over a two-year period. In a June 2015 report, the Auditor General alleged thirty senators' claims were inappropriate. The report recommended nine cases be referred for police investigation. No charges were laid in those cases. [3] Fourteen of these senators opted for binding arbitration by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie, and his report was issued on March 21, 2016.[4]
Senator Wallin delivered a speech in the Senate, where she condemned the body for ignoring the rule of law when it expelled four of its own members without any hearing or process:
- "Why is the Senate acting as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner before I have had a day in court? That's exactly why this whole process [is] flawed. If this chamber can take this extreme action with regard to a sitting senator, imagine what it can do to an ordinary citizen who crosses the government of the day. ... The issue is no longer about expenses, or audits, or transparency, or accountability, or even the reputation of this chamber — it's about an abuse of power. ... They were targeted leaks, many of them incorrect, designed to cast my conduct in the worst possible light. They were personal and vindictive, and they violated the rules of this place. ... The government [put] the sentencing before the trial..."[5]
See also
References
- ^ R. v. Duffy, 2016 ONCJ 220 (CanLII) (http://canlii.ca/t/gplvk) Retrieved June 4, 2016
- ^ "Senate scandal could be putting Harper's brand at risk". CBC News. November 1, 2013. Retrieved November 13, 2018.
- ^ Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Senate of Canada—Senators' Expenses, (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_otp_201506_e_40494.pdf). June 4, 2015.
- ^ "Report of the special arbitrator on the expense claims identified by the Auditor General in his report dated June 4, 2015". Retrieved from http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/reporting/AG/index-e-htm
- ^ "Debates of the Senate (Hansard)". Parliament of Canada. Senate of Canada. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2015.