Will Nova Scotia Senators agree to AG Audit ? will the public see the audit results?

In its toughest expense probe in the Senate’s history, Auditor General Michael Ferguson, who is reviewing all Senators’ expenses, including travel and office expenses, has asked Senators to provide dates and times when they will be available on the Hill to meet with his auditors over the summer and if they can’t come to Ottawa the AG’s auditors will go to the Senators

“Each one of them [Senators] were asked where they would be and whether they would be available during the summer,” a Senate source said. “If they were available, during what periods of time they would be available, where they would be available and at what times they would be available at their homes and the auditors were prepared to go and visit them at their homes if that was convenient for them. That was to cover the entire period from the time the Senate closed until it is scheduled to open in the second week of September.”

Senators are not offering on-the-record comments in the ongoing and sweeping probe because they’re prohibited by the Auditor General’s Office to discuss the mechanics of the audit. During the course of the review, the AG’s auditors meet with individual Senators and their staff several times. The first meeting is usually held between auditors and Senators to explain the methodology. Auditors also meet with Senators’ full-time, part-time, and contractual staffers to share the same details. During the review, if auditors come up with questions about individual housing and travel expense claims, they meet with Senators and staffers again on an as-needed basis.

Senate sources told The Hill Times that in meetings with the staff, auditors ask them if they know of any Senators who have made ineligible travel and hospitality expense claims. In some cases, auditors did get some tips from staffers, according to sources.

Prior to the start of the audit process, the AG’s Office held information sessions in the fall on the Hill with Senators and their staffers to explain the mechanics of the audit. The AG’s Office is expected to complete its work by December and release the report by March of next year.

In the ongoing review of the Senators’ expenses, sources told The Hill Times that auditors are conducting a detailed examination of phone bills, all hospitality expenses, per diems, and, in some cases, requesting personal credit card records of Senators who used those cards to pay for Senate business-related expenses.

One of the most frequently contentious issues that has emerged between the AG’s auditors and individual Senators is whether or not an expense was related to Parliamentary business or not, sources said.

Using a hypothetical scenario, a source said that if a Senator travels out of Ottawa to attend a conference that’s not directly related to the Senate or standing committee work and claims travel costs and per diems, auditors ask pointed questions as to how this trip was related to his or her Parliamentary work. This, in some cases, has caused testy exchanges.

“They [auditors] can’t tell Senators what is and what is not Parliamentary business. In some cases, Senators are pushing back,” one Senate source said.

Another said: “They’ve [auditors] never worked on Parliament Hill. They have no idea about Senators’ Parliamentary work. How can they decide what is and what’s not Parliamentary business.”

Mr. Ferguson also has told Senators that his auditors reserve the right to interview Senators’ neighbours to ascertain that they actually reside where they claim to and also to verify from third parties or their staffers the validity of their filed claims, a fourth source said.
Since the start of the Senate expenses scandal, Senate administration, which used to approve most of the Senators’ expenses without going into too much detail, is now a lot more vigilant and is also conducting a vigorous examination of all claims, sources said. 

A spokesman for Mr. Ferguson declined to provide any details on how auditors are going to contact Senators during the summer months, saying his office would not comment on the methodology or the scope until the completion of the audit.

“The work is ongoing, and any details regarding our scope, progress and methodology will not be discussed while the work is ongoing,” Ghislain Desjardains, the AG’s media relations manager wrote in an email to The Hill Times.
Mr. Desjardins also declined to say how many Senators have been audited and how many are yet to be audited.

Conservative Whip Elizabeth Marshall (Newfoundland and Labrador) told The Hill Times that the AG’s Office and individual Senators will make arrangements on their own in how they want to meet in the summer months.

Sen. Marshall, a former AG in her province, is the head of a three-member Senate Liaison Committee along with Liberal Sen. George Furey (Newfoundland and Labrador) and Conservative Sen. Larry Smith (Saurel, Que.) to coordinate the audit process. The committee meets every month with auditors to iron out any wrinkles and to ensure that the process works smoothly.

Sen. Furey declined to be interviewed and referred all questions to Sen. Marshall who declined to comment further on the process.

Liberal Sen. Jim Munson, who is also the whip, told The Hill Times that the AG’s Office is dealing directly with Senators to meet over the summer months and is not dealing with his office as whip.

  Individual Senators were tight-lipped about how the AG’s Office is going to reach them in the summer break because they’ve been prohibited by the AG’s Office to talk about how the Senate audit is being conducted, declining to go on-the-record.

Some told The Hill Times that they’ve already provided the AG’s Office with details on when they will be available to meet in Ottawa. But others are unwilling to come to Ottawa during Parliament’s summer break.

“I’m not going to come to Ottawa for this [in the summer recess]. They’re welcome to come to see me, I’m not coming here. Either they come to see me or wait until the fall session,” a Senator said.

Senators have 64 return air trips to and from the regions they represent and Ottawa. This includes 25 trips anywhere in Canada, four of which can be used to travel to Washington D.C. and New York for the UN.

Senators who live more than 100 kilometers from Parliament Hill can charge up to $22,000 a year for secondary housing expenses if they rent or own a property in or near Ottawa, under the Senate rules.

After the Senate expenses scandal made national headlines last year, revealing that some Conservative and Liberal Senators made allegedly ineligible housing and travel expense claims, the Senate’s Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee invited the auditor general to undertake a comprehensive audit of all Senators’ expenses.

Since then, three Conservative-turned-Independent Senators—Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy—have been suspended without pay from the Upper Chamber until the end of this Parliamentary session and former Liberal Sen. Mac Harb has resigned.

The RCMP is conducting an investigation into the questionable housing and travel expenses of the four Senators.

In February, the RCMP formally filed criminal charges against Sen. Brazeau and Sen. Harb with one count each of breach of trust and fraud.
 
As of deadline last week, no charges were filed against Sen. Duffy and Sen. Wallin but some media reports have suggested that it could happen in the coming weeks or months.

The RCMP also conducted a lengthy investigation into the questionable transaction between Nigel Wright, the former chief of staff to Prime Minster Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and Sen. Duffy, but ended up not filing any charges against Mr. Wright.

The former chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper gave Sen. Duffy $90,000 to pay off his questionable Senate expense claims and resigned shortly after CTV reported the story.
“When the RCMP initiated the investigation there were sufficient grounds to pursue the matter with regards to the offences of breach of trust, bribery, frauds on the government, as well as receiving prohibited compensation contrary to the Parliament of Canada Act,” RCMP Cpl. Lucy Shorey said in a statement issued in mid-April.

“Upon completion of the investigation, we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright.”

What evidence and can we the public and tax payers .. see such convincing  evidence?