Edit filter log

'{{Multiple issues| {{cleanup-rewrite|date=March 2015}} {{tone|date=March 2015}} }} The '''Canadian Senate expenses scandal''' is an ongoing [[political scandal]] concerning the expense claims of certain [[Canadian]] senators which began in late 2012. Senators [[Patrick Brazeau]], [[Mike Duffy]], [[Mac Harb]], and [[Pamela Wallin]] claimed travel and living allowance expenses from the [[Senate of Canada|Senate]] for which they were not eligible. Deloitte LLP was retained to provide the Senate with an independent examination of the expense claims. Duffy, Harb, and Wallin repaid ineligible amounts. Harb retired a few months into the scandal, and in November 2013, Brazeau, Duffy, and Wallin were suspended from the Senate without pay. Brazeau, Duffy, and Harb were criminally charged. The scandal attracted much public attention, with as many as 73% of Canadians following it closely.<ref name="brand at risk">Laura Payton. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-scandal-puts-harper-s-brand-at-risk-poll-suggests-1.2304444] "Senate scandal puts Harper's brand at risk, poll suggests". CBC News. 01 November 2013.</ref> As a result, the [[Auditor General of Canada]] examined expense claims made by all the other 116 senators and former senators over a two-year period. In a June 2015 report, the Auditor General identified thirty senators whose claims were ineligible, and of these, recommended that nine cases be referred for police investigation.<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> ==Overview== The investigation of senator expenses began in November 2012 with the living expense claims of [[Patrick Brazeau]] <ref name=SenB>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 23rd Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep23may13-e.htm) May 9, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref> and the travel expense claims of [[Pamela Wallin]].<ref name=SenW>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 27th Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep27aug13-e.htm) August 13, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref> By December 6, 2012, the Senate investigation was expanded to include the living expenses of [[Mac Harb]]<ref name=SenH>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 24th Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep24may13-e.htm) May 9, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref> On January 3, 2013, the Senate formally retained [[Deloitte LLP]] to review the claims of Brazeau, Harb and Wallin.<ref name="SenB"/><ref name=SenW/><ref name=SenH/> In February 2013, the Deloitte retainer was expanded to include [[Mike Duffy]]'s living expense claims.<ref name=SenDm9>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 22nd Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep22may13-e.htm) May 9, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref><ref name="timeline">Global News, and The Canadian Press. [http://globalnews.ca/news/568714/a-look-at-key-dates-in-the-evolution-of-the-senate-expense-claim-controversy/ "Timeline: Key Dates in the Evolution of the Senate Expense-claim Controversy."] ''Global News'', 18 June 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> In March 2013, and before the Deloitte audit was complete, Duffy repaid $90,172 for the living expenses he had claimed.<ref name=DelD/>{{rp|5}} <ref name="repaid">Cheadle, Bruce. [http://globalnews.ca/news/496011/duffy-says-hes-repaid-housing-expenses/ "Duffy says he’s repaid housing expenses"] ''Global News'', 19 April 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> It was later learned in May 2013 through the media that the source of this money was a personal cheque provided by [[Nigel S. Wright|Nigel Wright]], who was then Chief of Staff in the [[Office of the Prime Minister (Canada)|Prime Minister's Office]].<ref name=CalH2013>"Timeline: Canada's Senate scandal" (http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/timeline-canada-senate-scandal) October 24, 2013. Retrieved August 26, 2015</ref> On May 9, 2013, the Senate released reports about the expenses, along with Deloitte's reports. It acknowledged Deloitte's finding that the criteria for determining a senator's primary residence was lacking.<ref name=SenB/><ref name=SenH/><ref name=SenDm9/> However, the intent and purpose of Senate policies for reimbursement of living expenses were "amply clear" and so Brazeau and Harb were ordered to repay living expenses.<ref name=SenB/><ref name=SenH/><ref name="timeline" /> As of July 25, 2013, Harb still maintained his innocence;<ref name="uninhabitable">Fife, Robert, and Phillip Ling. "RCMP Allege Senator Mac Harb Claimed Expenses on 'uninhabitable' Home." CTVNews. ''CTV News'', 25 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> It emerged that the [[Conservative]]-dominated Senate committee had drafted the May 9 report on Duffy's living expenses to reflect less poorly on Duffy, who was at that time a member of the Conservative caucus.<ref>Ditchburn, Jennifer. [http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/tory-dominated-senate-committee-deleted-tough-parts-of-mike-duffy-expense-report-document/ "Tory-dominated Senate Committee Deleted Tough Parts of Mike Duffy Expense Report: document."] ''The National Post''. The National Post, 23 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> After two weeks of controversy, and amid concerns that Duffy was claiming travel expenses from both the Senate and the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]], the Senate reopened Duffy's audit.<ref>Press, Jordan. [http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/22/senate-to-reopen-mike-duffy-expense-audit-committee-accused-of-whitewashing-earlier-report-decides/ "Senate Committee Accused of Whitewashing Initial Report Decides to Reopen Mike Duffy’s Expense audit."] The National Post. ''National Post'', 22 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref><ref>Radia, Andy. [http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/senator-mike-duffy-may-now-investigated-double-dipping-184207921.html "Mike Duffy May Now Be Investigated for Double-dipping amid Growing Anti-Senate Sentiment."] Yahoo! News Canada. Yahoo, 17 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> On May 29, 2013 the Senate issued a report amending the May 9 one, and recommending that Duffy's case be referred to "the proper authorities."<ref name=SenDm29>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 26th Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep26may13-e.htm) May 29, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref> In the months following, many of Canada's political parties reiterated their positions that the Senate should be [[Senate of Canada#Senate reform|reformed or abolished]]. On February 1, 2013, the [[Harper government]] sought clarification from the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] on the federal government's legislative power to reform or abolish the Senate. On April 25, 2014 the court ruled that this could not be done through federal legislation, but rather required constitutional amendment. To reform the Senate, the consent of at least seven provinces, which collectively have half of Canada's population, is required. Abolishment requires the consent of all ten provinces.<ref>Reference re Senate Reform [2014] 1 S.C.R. 704</ref><ref>Payton, Laura. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/01/pol-senate-reform.html "Tories to Refer Senate Reform Questions to Supreme Court."] CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 01 February 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> The provinces' premiers, however, do not consider either a high priority.<ref>Benzie, Robert. [http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/26/senate_scandals_keep_premiers_abuzz.html "Senate Scandals Should Not Influence Reform, Premiers Say."] Thestar.com. The Star, 26 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> The [[Quebec Court of Appeal]] has re-iterated the role of the provinces in any decision.<ref>http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Court+gives+thumbs+down+Harper+governments+Senate+reform/9078197/story.html {{dead link|date=April 2015}}</ref> A June 2013 poll revealed that in the wake of the controversy, 49% of Canadians wanted to reform the Senate, 41% wanted to see it abolished, 6% wanted to keep it as it was, and 4% were unsure.<ref>CBC News. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/19/pol-nanos-number-june19-senate.html "Majority Wants Senate Changed or Abolished, Poll Suggests."] CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 20 June 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> On May 12, 2013, the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]] announced they were reviewing the expense claims.<ref name="timeline" /> The RCMP had started their investigation in March 2013 when media reports were published regarding Deloitte's external review of the expenses of Brazeau, Duffy and Harb.<ref name="cbc.ca">James Cudmore, "Senate expenses: Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb charged by RCMP" CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-expenses-patrick-brazeau-mac-harb-charged-by-rcmp-1.2522431) February 4, 2014. Retrieved July 17, 2015</ref><ref name=AffDn15>Information to Obtain Production Orders (http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1.Mike-Duffy.Nigel-Wright-Nov-15.13.pdf) November 15, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2015</ref><ref name=AffDj24>Information to Obtain a Production Order and Sealing Order (https://doc-14-a0-apps-viewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer/secure/pdf/3nb9bdfcv3e2h2k1cmg10ee9c) June 24, 2013. Retrieved July 2015</ref><ref name=AffHj25>Information to Obtain a Production Order (http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1384199!/httpFile/file.pdf) July 25, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2015</ref> On August 14, 2013, it was announced that the [[Auditor General of Canada]] would be reviewing the expense claims of all Senators.<ref>{{cite news|title=Auditor general to review all senators' expenses|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/15/pol-senate-expenses-auditor-general.html|accessdate=16 August 2013|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|date=15 August 2013}}</ref> In June 2015, the report was released by Auditor General Michael Ferguson and nine Senators including incumbent senators Pierre-Hughes Boisvenue and Colin Kenny were been subject of an RCMP investigation while 21 other Senators were flagged for filling inappropriate expense claims including Senate Speaker [[Leo Housakos]], Senate Government Leader Claude Carignan and Opposition Leader [[Jim Cowan|James Cowan]]. The Report indicated that nearly $1 million worth of inappropriate expenses were filed by the 30 Senators.<ref>{{cite news|title = 3 top senators wrongly billed expenses, auditor's report says|url=http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/auditors-report-says-3-top-senators-wrongly-billed-expenses-sources|accessdate=6 June 2015|newspaper=Ottawa Citizen|date = 4 June 2015}}</ref> ==Patrick Brazeau== ===Senate Investigation=== The Senate's investigation into the accuracy of Brazeau's declaration that his primary residence was in Maniwaki, Quebec began as a result of media reports.<ref name=SenB/> On November 20, 2012, a CTV reporter interviewed residents of Maniwaki, who said that Brazeau did not live there.<ref>CTVNews.ca Staff, "Senator who lives near Ottawa gets $20K housing allowance" (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senator-who-lives-near-ottawa-gets-20k-housing-allowance-1.1046956) November 20, 2012. Retrieved August 26, 2015.</ref> The next day, the Senate Government Leader announced that a subcommittee would investigate whether Brazeau was in compliance with Senate rules.<ref>CTVNews.ca Staff, "Senate committee looking into Brazeau's housing allowance" (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senate-committee-looking-into-brazeau-s housing-allowance-1.1048276) November 21, 2012. Retrieved August 26, 2015.</ref> The review period was April 2011 when Brazeau began to claim living expenses to September 30, 2012, the last date for which full records were available.<ref name=SenB/> The subcommittee's investigation "raised a number of questions", and so on December 11, 2012, it met with Brazeau and his lawyer. After this meeting, Deloitte was retained for external review.<ref name=SenB/> Deloitte was not able to assess the status of Brazeau's declaration that his primary residence was in Maniwaki because the Senate regulations and guidelines did not contain a definition of ''primary residence''. Deloitte was, however, able to confirm Brazeau's location for almost the entire review period. He was in Maniwaki about 10%, and in Ottawa about 81% of the time. He met all four "indicators" of primary residency (driver's licence, provincial health card, provincial tax return and voting location).<ref name=DelB/>{{rp|2; 13–20}} ===Repayment=== Based on the finding that only 10% of Brazeau's time was in Maniwaki, the Senate ruled that his "level of presence" did not support his primary residence declaration.<ref name=SenB/> Brazeau was ordered to repay a total of $48,745.<ref>Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411%5CCIBA/09MN-50247-E.HTM) June 13, 2013. Retrieved July 24, 2015</ref> On July 3, 2013, the Senate announced it would reduce Brazeau's salary by 20% to obtain repayment.<ref>Smith, Joanna.[http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/03/senate_set_to_claw_back_patrick_brazeaus_wages.html "Senate Expenses Scandal: Patrick Brazeau's Wages to Be Clawed Back."] Thestar.com. The Star, 03 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> It would have taken about 21 months to recoup all that was owing;<ref name=CalH2013/> however, this was interrupted by the suspension without pay in November 2013. With the parliamentary session ending when the federal election was called, it is expected that Brazeau will begin receiving his salary again, so further amounts may be recovered through the 20% reduction.<ref name=CBCj29>Rosemary Barton, "Suspended senators will be back on the public payroll during election" CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/suspended-senators-will -be-back-on-the-pubic-payroll-during-election-1.3172402) July 29, 2015</ref> ===Expulsion from caucus=== Brazeau was expelled from the Conservative caucus on February 7, 2013 over [[sexual assault]] allegations.<ref name=CalH2013/><ref>Woods, Michael. [http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/weathering-the-storm-sen-patrick-brazeau-to-vigorously-contest-sexual-assault-charges/ "‘Weathering the Storm,’ Sen. Patrick Brazeau to ‘vigorously’ contest sexual Assault charges."] National Post. The National Post, 22 March 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref><ref>CBC News "Patrick Brazeau's troubled rise and fall" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/patrick-brazeau-s-troubled-rise-and-fall-1.2605251) April 10, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2015</ref> ===Criminal charges=== On February 4, 2014 the RCMP announced that Brazeau was charged in relation to his living expenses with one count of fraud under s. 380 of the ''[[Criminal Code of Canada]]'' and one of breach of trust by a public officer under s. 122.<ref name="cbc.ca"/> The trial is scheduled to start in March 2016.<ref name=CBCj29/> ==Mac Harb== On August 26, 2013, Mac Harb announced his retirement, and that he had paid back the outstanding $180,166.17 to the Senate, having repaid all $231,649.07 in living expenses claimed since 2005. He also dropped all legal action against the Senate. Harb retired with a full parliamentary pension of $122,989 per year.<ref>{{cite news|title=Senator Mac Harb pays back $231,000 in expenses, retires|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/26/pol-mac-harb-senate-expenses.html|accessdate=26 August 2013|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|date=26 August 2013}}</ref> Harb was scheduled go to court on August 10, 2015<ref>{{cite web|last1=Michelle|first1=Zilio|title=From court battles to an election, what to expect in Canadian politics in 2015|url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/from-court-battles-to-an-election-what-to-expect-in-canadian-politics-in-2015-1.2171756|website=CTVNews.ca|publisher=Bell Media Television|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=4 January 2015}}</ref> to face one count of breach of trust and one count of fraud.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Cudmore|first1=James|title=Senate expenses: Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb charged by RCMP|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-expenses-patrick-brazeau-mac-harb-charged-by-rcmp-1.2522431|website=CBC News|publisher=CBC/Radio-Canada|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=4 February 2014}}</ref> His trial has been postponed into the new year because the Duffy trial is taking longer than expected.<ref>David Reevely, "Ex-senator Mac Harb's criminal trial postponed" http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ex-senator-mac-harbs-criminal-trial-postponed, June 1, 2015. Retrieved July 19, 2015</ref> ==Wright–Duffy affair== {{Tone|section|date=November 2013}} According to unnamed sources, in February 2013 the [[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]]'s legal advisor, [[Benjamin Perrin]], drafted a [[letter of understanding]] between [[Nigel S. Wright|Nigel Wright]], the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and Duffy.<ref>Janus, Andrea. [http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-s-former-legal-adviser-arranged-deal-for-wright-to-give-duffy-90k-1.1289718 "PM's Former Legal Adviser Arranged Deal for Wright to Give Duffy $90K."] CTVNews. CTV News, 20 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> The sources suggest that the letter stated Wright's intention to transfer $90,172 to cover Duffy's invalid expense claims. Perrin claims that the story is false.<ref>Wherry, Aaron. [http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/21/benjamin-perrin-i-was-not-consulted-on-and-did-not-participate-in-nigel-wrights-decision/ "Benjamin Perrin: ‘I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision’"] Macleans. Web.</ref> On July 30, 2014, the [[Law Society of British Columbia]] announced that it closed its file related to Perrin's alleged role in the affair because the complaint was not valid.<ref>{{cite web|title=B.C. law society won't investigate former PMO lawyer Benjamin Perrin|url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/b-c-law-society-won-t-investigate-former-pmo-lawyer-benjamin-perrin-1.1939629|website=CTVNews.ca|publisher=Bell Media Television|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=30 July 2014}}</ref> On October 25, 2014, the [[Law Society of Upper Canada]] also reported that after fully investigating, it had no concerns whatsoever with Perrin's conduct as a lawyer.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Mendleson|first1=Rachel|title=Case closed on lawyers in Mike Duffy-Nigel Wright affair|url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/case_closed_on_lawyers_in_mike_duffynigel_wright_affair.html|website=thestar.com|publisher=Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=25 Oct 2014}}</ref> On May 15, 2013, the [[Office of the Prime Minister (Canada)|Prime Minister's Office]] confirmed that Wright sent Duffy a personal cheque in that amount; the federal [[Ethics Commissioner]] announced that he would review the case.<ref>Stone, Laura. [http://globalnews.ca/news/564681/pmo-chief-of-staff-wrote-personal-cheque-for-mike-duffy/ "Ethics Commissioner Reviewing Mike Duffy Affair."] Global News. Global News, 15 May 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> [[File:Mike Duffy.jpg|thumb|Mike Duffy]] The next day, Duffy resigned from the Conservative caucus;<ref name="timeline" /> he now sits as an independent senator. On May 19, 2013 allegations surfaced that the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff Nigel Wright was resigning after giving $90,000 to Harper’s senator Duffy to clean up an appearance of illegal or unright debt Senator Duffy was owing for taking too much money for his housing expenses. Email evidence shows that on May 8, 2013 Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton was in a meeting with Senate Issues Manager Patrick Rogers, Senator [[Carolyn Stewart Olsen|Carolyn Stewart-Olsen]], and Chris Montgomery (LeBreton’s assistant). On May 9, 2013 Carolyn Stewart-Olsen put forth a motion to change a senate report on Senator Mike Duffy, deleting the part about residency rules being "very clear" and "unambiguous." On May 20, 2013 the NDP and their ethics critic MP Charlie Angus called on the RCMP to investigate the matter of bribery appearing in Nigel Wright's payment offer to Senator Mike Duffy. On May 22, 2013, Harper denied knowledge of the cheque. Harper's legal adviser also denied knowledge of the cheque.<ref>[http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Five+questions+about+rediscovery+Senate+emails/9239121/story.html "Five questions about rediscovery of Senate emails"] The StarPhoenix May 22, 2013.</ref> On June 5, 2013 Harper said in Parliament that: "it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers. Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office."<ref>[http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=6208877#Int-8057943 "Oral Questions"] Hansard June 5, 2013</ref> On June 6, 2013, the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]] (RCMP) filed documents with the courts, contradicting statements by revealing that three senior members of the Prime Minister's Office and another Conservative senator, [[Irving Gerstein]], knew about the transfer.<ref name="rcmp">MacKinnon, Leslie. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/05/pol-rcmp-documents-questions-raised.html "8 Things Revealed by RCMP's Court Filings on Mike Duffy."] CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 06 July 2013. Web. 27 July 2013.</ref> The documents further revealed that the Conservative Party of Canada initially intended to pay $30,000 for Duffy to repay his expenses before they learned the full amount, that Duffy was being investigated over three separate allegations of fraud, and that the investigation began of the RCMP's own volition in March 2013.<ref name="rcmp" /> On June 13, 2013 the RCMP confirmed they were beginning an Official investigation into Nigel Wright. The RCMP did not contact the PMO. On June 24, 2013 the lead investigator Cpl. Greg Horton put to the courts an affidavit reporting a June 19 meeting with Nigel Wright's lawyers. Later one of the lawyers told the RCMP that Wright remembers that he told his executive assistant David van Hemmen, Harper's legal adviser Benjamin Perrin, and PMO Director of Issues Management Chris Woodcock about his intention to give Duffy the money.<ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-documents/article13015889 "Read the RCMP's documents on Mike Duffy"] The Globe and Mail July 5, 2013. Web./</ref> On October 21, 2013, Duffy's lawyer claimed that the Prime Minister's Office "pushed" Duffy into accepting the cheque, contrary to the Prime Minister's statements that no one in his office other than Wright knew of the deal.<ref>MacKreal, Kim. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pmo-senate-gave-duffy-green-light-to-expense-pei-property-says-lawyer/article14960773/ "Duffy’s lawyer says Harper's office pushed Senator into scandal"] The Globe and Mail, 21 October 2013. Web. 21 October 2013.</ref> The next day, Duffy told the Senate that Harper personally told Duffy to repay the money, quoting him as saying, "It’s not about what you did. It’s about the perception of what you did that’s been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base."<ref>{{cite web|title=Mike Duffy claims Harper told him to repay expense money|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-claims-harper-told-him-to-repay-expense-money-1.2158507|website=CBCNews|publisher=CBC/Radio-Canada|accessdate=8 April 2015|date=22 October 2013}}</ref><ref>The Canadian Press. [http://www.citynews.ca/2013/10/22/prime-minister-ordered-me-to-repay-disallowed-expenses-duffy-tells-senate/] CityNews Toronto. 22 October 2013. Web. 22 October 2013.</ref> On October 28, 2013, Harper stated in an interview that Wright had been "dismissed," contradicting his previous statements, made in the spring, that Wright had made his own decision to resign.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Cheadle|first1=Bruce|title=Nigel Wright was 'dismissed,' Stephen Harper says — at odds with May statement that former chief of staff resigned|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/nigel-wright-was-dismissed-stephen-harper-says-at-odds-with-may-statement-that-former-chief-of-staff-resigned|website=National Post|publisher=Postmedia Network Inc.|accessdate=5 April 2015|date=28 October 2013}}</ref> On that day of October 28 Duffy announced that the Conservative Party – via their chief lawyer, Arthur Hamilton – paid all of his legal fees relating to the scandal, tabling a cheque stub and corresponding memo as proof.<ref>Gloria Galloway and Kim MacKrael. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-gave-duffy-more-money-than-just-90000-cheque-senator-claims/article15121320/#dashboard/follows/]. "Conservatives gave Duffy more than one cheque, senator claims". 28 October 2013.</ref> Duffy also tabled documents supporting the legality of his residency claims.<ref>The Globe and Mail. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/read-duffys-documents-including-private-emails-and-cheque-for-conservative-lawyer/article15122585/] Read Duffy's documents, including e-mails and cheque for Conservative lawyer. 28 October 2013.</ref> Furthermore, Duffy tabled an email sent to him from Nigel Wright's account at the Prime Minister's Office, despite the fact that the PMO had previously claimed that none existed in response to an [[Access to Information Act]] request.<ref>Greg Weston. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-scandal-creates-no-paper-trail-in-pm-s-own-department-1.1308487] Senate scandal creates no paper trail in PM’s own department. 26 August 2013.</ref> On April 15, 2014, the RCMP announced that they had found "no ground for criminal charges" against Wright and dropped their investigation into the matter, returning it to the federal Ethics Commissioner. An anonymous source stated, "It was decided that it was best for him to act as a witness." It was further stated that Harper would not be interviewed by the RCMP in the affair.<ref>Stephen Chase, Daniel Leblanc. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-drop-probe-into-wright-over-90000-duffy-cheque/article18023811/] RCMP drop investigation into Nigel Wright over $90,000 Duffy cheque. 15 April 2014.</ref> Duffy's trial began on April 7 at the Ontario Court of Justice in Ottawa. He pled not guilty to 31 charges, including fraud, breach of trust and bribery.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Payton|first1=Laura|title=Mike Duffy pleads not guilty as Senate expenses trial gets underway|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-pleads-not-guilty-as-senate-expenses-trial-gets-underway-1.3022689|website=CBCNews|publisher=CBC/Radio-Canada|accessdate=7 April 2015|date=7 April 2015}}</ref> ==Pamela Wallin== In February 2013, an extraordinary external audit of Pamela Wallin's [[travel expenses]] began. From December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2012, Senate records show that Wallin claimed $29,423 in "regular travel" expenses for direct flights from Ottawa to her home province of [[Saskatchewan]] or back. Her "other travel" expenses (to other Canadian destinations, including [[Toronto]]) were $321,027 over that same 24-month period.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sen.parl.gc.ca/senproactivedisclosure/default.aspx?language=E |title=Financial Reports |accessdate=March 7, 2013 |work=Website of the Senate of Canada}}</ref> Senator Wallin noted in a ''[[Globe and Mail]]'' op-ed that a great deal of the "other travel" was actually to and from her home province of Saskatchewan, but didn't count as "regular travel" because the flights did not start or end in [[Ottawa]].<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/pamela-wallin-wadena-is-my-home-the-senate-is-my-job/article8535391/ |title=Wadena is my home, the Senate is my job; Globe and Mail|accessdate=March 7, 2013 | location=Toronto |work=The Globe and Mail |date=13 February 2013}}</ref> [[File:ETalk2008-Pamela Wallin.jpg|thumb|Wallin in 2008]] Although Wallin listed Saskatchewan as her [[primary residence]] records show she possessed a valid [[Ontario Health Insurance Plan|Ontario Health Card]] indicating her primary residence was in Toronto where she has a [[condo]].<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/25/pamela_wallin_conservative_senator_holds_ontario_health_card.html |title=Pamela Wallin, Conservative senator, holds Ontario health card &#124; Toronto Star |first=Bruce |last=Campion-Smith |work=thestar.com |accessdate=February 27, 2013 |date=25 February 2013}}</ref> Wallin was one of several senators who faced questions about whether they lived in the province for which they were appointed. The Senate was concerned that Wallin's travel expenses are unrelated to Senate business and appointed the external auditor [[Deloitte]] to examine refunds she has claimed. Preliminary findings indicated “a pattern of claiming Senate expenses on personal or other business unrelated to the Senate, including boards she sits on.”<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/24/senate_asked_deloitte_to_broaden_investigation_into_sen_pamela_wallins_travel_expenses.html |title=Senate asked Deloitte to broaden investigation into Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses &#124; Toronto Star |first=Joanna |last=Smith |work=thestar.com |accessdate=June 1, 2013 |date=24 May 2013}}</ref> Wallin earned approximately $1 million in [[stock option]]s and fees while on corporate boards since her appointment as senator.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/06/pamela_wallin_earned_more_than_1_million_as_corporate_director_since_senate_appointment.html |title=Pamela Wallin earned approximately $1 million as corporate director since Senate appointment &#124; Toronto Star |first=Joanna |last=Smith |work=thestar.com |accessdate=June 6, 2013 |date=6 June 2013}}</ref> In May 2013 Wallin resigned from the Senate Conservative caucus pending the results of the external audit of her expense.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/17/pol-pamela-wallin-conservative-caucus.html |title=Senator Pamela Wallin leaves Conservative caucus – Politics – CBC News |first= |last=CBC News |work=cbc.ca|accessdate=May 17, 2013}}</ref> A [[Postmedia News]] analysis indicated Wallin was ranked second highest in overall spending at $369,593 behind recently retired Conservative Senator [[Gerry St. Germain]], who spent $378,292 during the same period.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/25/pamela-wallin-mike-duffy-among-the-top-10-spenders-in-the-senate-analysis-concludes/ |title=Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy among the top 10 spenders in the Senate &#124; Canadian Politics &#124; Canada &#124; News &#124; National Post |first=Jordan |last=Press |work=nationalpost.com |accessdate=March 8, 2013}}</ref> On August 13, 2013, an audit by [[Deloitte]] into her expense claims found that Wallin inappropriately claimed overnight stopovers in Toronto on her trips between Ottawa and Saskatchewan and criticized other travel by Wallin for business unrelated to the Senate. The audit also questioned several of Wallin's "[[networking event]]s" but found that further review by the Senate was necessary to see if these events qualified as Senate business. The audit ordered Wallin to repay $121,348 in improper expense claims and was referred to the RCMP.<ref>{{cite news|title=Pamela Wallin may be asked to pay more by Senate committee|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/15/pol-senator-wallin-repay-expenses.html|accessdate=15 August 2013|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|date=15 August 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Pamela Wallin's 'troubling' expense audit headed to RCMP|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/13/pol-wallin-audit-release-senate-report.html|accessdate=15 August 2013|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|date=13 August 2013}}</ref> The same day the audit was released Wallin held a news conference and called the audit "fundamentally flawed and unfair."<ref>{{cite news|title=Pamela Wallin audit details set for public release|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/12/pol-wallin-audit-monday.html|accessdate=15 August 2013|newspaper=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|date=12 August 2013}}</ref> On September 13, 2013, it was announced that Wallin had reimbursed the Senate.<ref>{{cite news|title=Sen. Pamela Wallin reimburses Senate for questionable travel claims|url=http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/13/sen-pamela-wallin-reimburses-senate-for-questionable-travel-claims/|accessdate=13 September 2013|newspaper=Maclean's|date=13 September 2013}}</ref> Senator Wallin delivered a speech in the Senate, where she condemned the body for ignoring the rule of law: :"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> ==Suspension of Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau== After 2 weeks of debate, on Tuesday November 5, 2013 the Senate voted to suspend Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau without pay and most benefits. The Senators kept their health and dental benefits as well as their life insurance.<ref>{{cite news|last=MacKinnon|first=Leslie|title=Senate votes to suspend Brazeau, Duffy, Wallin|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-votes-to-suspend-brazeau-duffy-wallin-1.2415815|work=CBC.ca|publisher=CBC|accessdate=30 November 2013}}</ref> The Senators were expected to be automatically and fully reinstated with the dissolution of Parliament prior to the [[Canadian federal election, 2015|42nd Canadian general election]],<ref>{{cite news|last=Barton|first=Rosemary|title=Suspended senators will be back on the public payroll during election|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/suspended-senators-will-be-back-on-the-public-payroll-during-election-1.3172402|work=CBC.ca|publisher=CBC|access-date=14 August 2015}}</ref> but due to pending charges against Duffy and Brazeau, certain Senate resources remain unavailable to them.<ref>{{cite news|last=Geddes|first=John|title=Catching up on the Senate status of Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin|url=http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/catching-up-on-the-senate-status-of-duffy-brazeau-and-wallin/|work=Macleans.ca|publisher=Macleans|access-date=15 August 2015}}</ref> ==Expenses eligible for reimbursement== ===Constitutional context=== Each province or territory is allocated a set number of Senate seats, so that Canada's regions have a voice in the legislative process, even if their population is comparatively small.<ref>''Reference re Senate Reform'' [2014] 1 S.C.R. 704, para 15.</ref> Senators must own property in the region for which they are appointed, and they "shall be resident" in that region. There is no definition of "resident".<ref>s. 23(3) and (5), ''Constitution Act, 1867''</ref> ===Primary Residence=== Senators are expected to remain members of the region which they represent and to continue public duties there, as well as attending to Senate business in Ottawa. Senators whose primary residence is more than 100 kilometers from Ottawa are entitled to claim living expenses (accommodation and per diems) while in Ottawa on Senate business, and travel costs to commute between Ottawa and their primary residence. The Ottawa location must be the senator's secondary residence for this entitlement to arise. Senators must make an annual declaration of primary and secondary residence, and keep it updated.<ref name=AGR>''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>{{rp|5–6; 23}} Deloitte LLP was the audit firm hired by the Senate to investigate the expense claims of Brazeau, Duffy, Harb, and Wallin. The review periods of the Deloitte audits were: April 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012 for Brazeau,<ref name=DelB>Deloitte LLP, ''Examination of Senator Brazeau's Primary and Secondary Residence Status'' (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/Deloitte_SenBrazeau-e.pdf), May 2013</ref> Duffy,<ref name=DelD>Deloitte LLP ''Examination of Senator Duffy's Primary and Secondary Residence Status'' (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/Deloitte_SenDuffy-e.pdf), May 2013</ref> and Harb,<ref name=DelH>Deloitte LLP, ''Examination of Senator Harb's Primary and Secondary Residence Status'' (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/Deloitte_SenHarb-e.pdf), May 2013</ref> and for Wallin the review period was January 1, 2009 to September 30, 2012.<ref name=DelW>Deloitte LLP, ''Review of Senator Wallin's Travel Expense and Living Allowance Claims'' (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/Deloitte_SenWallin-e.pdf), August 2013</ref> During the Deloitte review periods, the Senate regulations and guidelines did not contain criteria for determining which location was a senator's primary residence. Terms used without being clearly defined were: primary residence, secondary residence, NCR residence, and provincial residence.<ref name=DelD/>{{rp|2}}<ref name=DelB/>{{rp|2}}<ref name=DelH/> {{rp|2}} The maximum living expenses claimable were $20,000, which increased to $22,000 under the Senate's June 5, 2012 Travel Policy.<ref name=DelD/>{{rp|11}} The only definition of ''primary residence'' in the documents reviewed by Deloitte was in the Senator's Travel Policy that was effective June 5, 2012. That policy defined ''primary residence'' as "the residence identified by the senator as his/her main residence and is situated in the province or territory represented by the senator."<ref name=DelD/>{{rp|13}}<ref name=DelB/>{{rp|13}}<ref name=DelH/>{{rp|13}}<ref name=DelW/>{{rp|27–28}} On December 6, 2012, the Senate Steering Committee asked Senate Administration to assess whether the declarations of primary residence of all senators was sufficiently supported by documentation. Senators were asked to provide: 1. driver's license, 2. provincial health card, 3. provincial income tax return; and 4. signed statement of voting location. Deloitte referred to these as "indicators" of primary residence.<ref name=DelD/>{{rp|13}}<ref name=DelB/>{{rp|13}}<ref name=DelH/>{{rp|13}}<ref name=DelW/>{{rp|28}} On February 28, 2013, the committee reported that it was satisfied with the documentation provided and no further senators were to be referred for external review.<ref>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 19th Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep19feb13-e.htm) February 28, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref> The Senator's Travel Policy was reviewed to "comply with primary residence declarations" and a report was made on May 9, 2013.<ref>The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 25th Report (http://www.parl.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/rep25may13-e.htm) May 9, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2015.</ref> Among the recommendations was that the following be deleted from the Senate Rules: "Senators act on their personal honour and Senators are presumed to have acted honourably in carrying out their administrative functions unless and until the Senate or the Internal Economy Committee determines otherwise." The definitions of ''National Capital accommodation'' and ''provincial residence'' were changed, but no reference was made to changing the definition of ''primary residence''. ===Travel for parliamentary business=== Senators may claim travel expenses, under a 64-point travel system, when the purpose of the trip is for parliamentary business.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|13}} The Senator's Resource Guide that was in effect during the Deloitte review periods stipulated that travel expenses would be paid when senators were carrying out "their parliamentary functions within their region, to and from Ottawa, and elsewhere in Canada ..." The June 5, 2012 Travel Policy was to the same effect, and included an elaboration that funding under the 64-point system is intended for "travel incurred in the carrying out of Senators' parliamentary functions or that is otherwise incurred for the service of the Senate." Travel for personal concerns, private business interests, or related to election of an MP during a federal election were specifically excluded. An Appendix provided examples of travel purposes that would or would not be funded.<ref name=DelW/>{{rp|8–13}} Deloitte and the Auditor General noted that the June 5, 2012 Travel Policy did not make substantive changes to the Senate's previous travel policies. Some senators agreed with this interpretation, while other senators were of the view that this policy "changed the requirements that applied to them."<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|3}} When claiming their travel expenses, senators indicated on their claim form that the purpose of the trip was for parliamentary or Senate business. They were required to retain details of the nature of the business for seven years.<ref name=DelW/>{{rp|2}} However, the Auditor General noted that in "many cases", senators did not keep these records.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|16}} ==The Auditor General's Report== ===Background=== In June 2012, after doing a performance audit of Senate Administration, the Auditor General reported that "improvements were needed so that documentation would be sufficient to demonstrate that the transactions [authorized] were for parliamentary business." In late 2012 and early 2013, "questions arose" as to the living expenses of Brazeau, Duffy, and Harb, and the travel expenses of Wallin. On June 6, 2013, the Senate asked the Auditor General to "conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses, including Senators' expenses."<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|4}} The audit encompassed all expenses of 116 senators and former senators over a two-year period between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2013.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|2}} In determining whether expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, the "fundamental principle" of the audit was that "public funds should not be used to pay for personal or private activities."<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|4}} ===Overview of results=== The Auditor General reported that "the oversight, accountability, and transparency of Senators' expenses was quite simply not adequate." A "transformational change" was needed in all areas of senator expenses: how these are "claimed, managed, controlled, and reviewed."<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|1}} ===Recommendations=== Independent oversight of senators' expenses needs to be established. The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the "Internal Economy Committee") has the statutory authority over all financial and administrative matters. This includes budget authorization, setting and clarifying policies for senator entitlement to claim expenses, and deciding in individual cases whether an expense claim is appropriate. Because this Senate committee is composed of individual senators, there is a conflict of interest which "may give rise to a perceived lack of objectivity." An oversight body whose membership is independent of the Senate should be established, along with mandating the Auditor General as the external auditor.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|9–12}} Senators should "collectively determine a core set of principles that weigh the cost to taxpayers against the expenditures necessary to conduct parliamentary business." This recommendation arose because the Auditor General "found many occasions where Senators' choices could have been less costly, particularly in relation to travel, per diems, and telecommunications."<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|12–15}} Senators need to maintain detailed records of the nature of the parliamentary business for which an expense is incurred, and submit these details to Senate Administration when making expense claims.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|15–18}} Establish greater transparency. Senators should disclose "any close personal or business relationships, or outside interests" relating to claims and expenditures. In some cases, this disclosure would be made to Senate Administration and in other cases, made public on the Senate website.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|18–20}} Ensure that the "financial management practices" of the Office of the [[Speaker of the Canadian Senate|Speaker of the Senate]] are consistent with those that govern all senator expenses.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|-21–22}} ===Findings on individual senators=== Thirty senators or former senators were found to have made inappropriate or ineligible expense claims. Of the 30, the Auditor General recommended that nine cases (detailed in Appendix A) be referred for police investigation. The other 21 cases (detailed in Appendix B) were recommended for review by the Senate's Internal Economy Committee to make a determination whether the expenses were for parliamentary business.<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|23–25}} A dispute resolution process through [[arbitration]] was established for senators who disagreed with the Auditor General's findings. [[Ian Binnie]], retired [[Supreme Court of Canada]] Justice, will lead the arbitration and his decision will be final.<ref>Senate News Release, "Senate Speaker releases full report of Auditor General of Canada" (http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/reporting/AG/index-e.htm) June 9, 2015. Retrieved July 28, 2015.</ref> ====The nine cases==== In each of the nine cases recommended for police investigation, the Auditor General found one or both of the following:<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|37}} "The Senator or former Senator had made ineligible claims for living expenses incurred while in the [[National Capital Region]] and other travel expenses when we determined that the Senator or former Senator had not established a substantive presence at his or her declared primary residence.... "There was such a pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence, that we were prevented from reaching an audit opinion about whether the expenses had been incurred for parliamentary business." The nine senators are: (i) Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu: both primary residence and parliamentary business issues<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|39–41}} (ii) Sharon Carstairs (resigned): primary residence issue<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|43–44}} (iii) Marie-P. Charette-Poulin (resigned): parliamentary business issue<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|45–46}} (iv) Colin Kenny: parliamentary business issue<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|47–48}} (v) Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (retired): both primary residence and parliamentary business issues<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|49–50}} (vi) Donald Oliver (retired): parliamentary business issue<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|51–53}} (vii) William Rompkey (retired): primary residence issue<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|55–56}} (viii) Gerry St. Germain (retired): parliamentary business issue<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|57–59}} (ix) Rod Zimmer (resigned): both primary residence and parliamentary business issues<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|61–63}} The repayment status and options for arbitration of the nine senators as at August 10, 2015 are:<ref name="sen.parl.gc.ca">"Senators Repayment Status" (http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/reporting/AG/index-e.htm) August 10, 2015. Retrieved August 23, 2015.</ref> (i) Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu: repaid $908 out of $61,822 and opted for arbitration (ii) Sharon Carstairs: repaid none of $7,528 and opted for arbitration (iii) Marie-P. Charette-Poulin: repaid $5,606 out of $131,434 (iv) Colin Kenny: repaid $3,535 out of $35,549 and opted for arbitration (v) Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: repaid none of $110,051 and opted for arbitration (vi) Donald Oliver: repaid $23,395 out of $48,088 (vii) Bill Rompkey: repaid none of $17,292 and opted for arbitration (viii) Gerry St. Germain: repaid $468 out of $67,588 and opted for arbitration (ix) Rod Zimmer: repaid none of $176,014 ====The twenty-one cases==== The Auditor General recommended that the Senate's Internal Economy Committee review 21 cases and make a determination as to eligibility to claim the expenses because:<ref name=AGR/>{{rp|65}} "we could not accept the Senators' expenses as having been incurred for parliamentary business, because of the nature or significance of the transactions, or because there was insufficient information to support them, or "we determined the expenses were not in accordance with the applicable Senate rules, policies, or guidelines." The repayment status and options for arbitration of the 21 senators as at August 10, 2015 are:<ref name="sen.parl.gc.ca"/> (i) Claude Carignan: repaid all of $3,516 (ii) James Cowan: repaid all of $10,397 (iii) Jean-Guy Dagenais: repaid none of $3,538 and opted for arbitration (iv) Joseph Day: repaid $2,850 out of $19,634 and opted for arbitration (v) Nicole Eaton: repaid all of $3,489 (vi) Leo Housakos: repaid all of $8,319 (vii) Janis Johnson: repaid all of $22,706 (viii) Noel Kinsella (resigned): repaid all of $9,386 (ix) Sandra Lovelace Nicholas: repaid none of $75,227 and opted for arbitration (x) Elaine McCoy: repaid none of $10,298 and opted for arbitration (xi) Terry Mercer: repaid none of $29,338 and opted for arbitration (xii) Pana Merchant: repaid $511 out of $5,500 and opted for arbitration (xiii) Lowell Murray (retired): repaid none of $16,300 and opted for arbitration (xiv) Dennis Glen Patterson: repaid $9,223 out of $22,985 and opted for arbitration (xv) Robert Peterson (retired): repaid none of $11,493 and opted for arbitration (xvi) Donald Neil Plett: repaid $2,975 out of $4,095 and opted for arbitration (xvii) Vivienne Poy (resigned): repaid all of $15,317 (xviii) Nancy Greene Raine: repaid all of $2,800 (ixx) Nick Sibbeston: repaid none of $50,102 and opted for arbitration (xx) Terry Stratton (retired): repaid $59 out of $5,466 and opted for arbitration (xxi) David Tkachuk: repaid $3,920 out of $7,391 and opted for arbitration ==See also== * [[List of Canadian political scandals]] * [[United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal]] ==References== {{reflist|30em}} [[Category:Senate of Canada]] [[Category:2013 in Canadian politics]] [[Category:Political scandals in Canada]] [[Category:Corruption in Canada]]'