Sheila Fraser and Kenneth Dye both told The Hill Times that the public has a right to know how Parliament spends their money.
“As a taxpayer, I’d be a bit suspicious that they’re trying to guard the information that they have. After all, it is public money,” said Ken Dye, who served as Canada’s chief accountant from 1981 to 1991, under the Trudeau and Mulroney administrations. “This is where auditors — not me alone—would look and say, ‘There’s something more to this.’ ”
Ms. Fraser, who was auditor general from 2001 to 2011, said that the House and Senate should be subject to comprehensive audits by the auditor general every 10 years.
“If the smallest museum has to have one of these audits every 10 years, it seems to me appropriate that the House of Commons and the Senate would have the same kind of provision,” she observed. “Given the amount of money that’s being spent there, I think it could go a long ways to giving public comfort that their systems and practices are working well, and I think it could be of great benefit to the Members of Parliament.”
The Senate is currently subject to two audits, but neither is being conducted by Auditor General Michael Ferguson. The Upper Chamber instead opted to have four Senators’ expenses reviewed by private auditing firm Deloitte and Touche, while an internal audit by Senate administration is also underway to determine whether or not expense allowance claims are being supported by proper documentation.
Conservative Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee, bristled after being asked when the public would see the results of the two audits.
“What did I say before? The story hasn’t changed,” Sen. Tkachuk responded irately to The Hill Times following the March 21 in-camera meeting of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. He offered no further comment.
As chair of the committee, Sen. Tkachuk has played a lead role in directing the investigation into Senate expense claims since the story of Senator Patrick Brazeau’s questionable housing claims broke last November. The expense claims of three other Senators have since come into question—housing allowance claims by Liberal Senator Mac Harb and Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, and travel expense claims by Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin.
Senators with a primary residence more than 100 kilometres from Parliament are entitled to an annual housing allowance of $22,000 to cover a secondary residence while in Ottawa on Senate business.
Senators Duffy, Harb, and Brazeau allegedly claimed a housing allowance despite having a primary residence within 100 km of Parliament. Sen. Wallin has come under scrutiny for racking up more than $295,000 in “other” travel expenses since the Senate agreed to begin publicly disclosing Senators’ expense claims in 2010.
Sen. Tkachuk, Liberal Senator George Furey, and Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen also reviewed their colleagues’ driver licences, health cards, voting declarations, and 2011 income tax statements to ensure that no other Senators were claiming secondary residence allowances on a primary residence in the National Capital Region.
The subcommittee did not review income tax filings before 2011, however, and on Feb. 28 they tabled a report exonerating all 95 Senators who were not already being audited by Deloitte.
“It sounds like they’re being pretty coy about information,” Mr. Dye observed. “I’m always very suspicious when public announcements are so contrived that you know the real story is not being told.”
Mr. Dye said that he was surprised that the Senate did not ask the auditor general to conduct the audits, but noted that it allows the Senate to control the findings by defining their own terms of reference.
“If the auditor general were to do it, the [Senate] is not entitled to tell the auditor general how to do his or her work,” Mr. Dye explained.
The Hill Times contacted Sen. Tkachuk’s office to request the terms of reference for the audits, but did not receive a response.
Ms. Fraser, who was succeeded by current Auditor General Michael Ferguson after finishing her 10-year term in 2011, had her own questions about the Internal Economy committee’s decision to only look at the declared residencies on Senators’ most recent income tax statements.
“They should make sure that the claims for each one of the years was supported. That’s kind of the basic rule. I don’t think it’s enough to do one year—it doesn’t seem to me to be sufficient,” said Ms. Fraser, who now serves on the board of directors for Bombardier.
Ms. Fraser’s attempts to open Parliament’s books in the final years of her tenure were met with resistance.
“They were certainly not keen to have the auditor general come in,” said Ms. Fraser, who recalled having her requests to open Parliament’s books ignored when she began to push for access in 2009. Ms. Fraser was eventually able to negotiate an audit of Parliament’s financial management.
The House’s Board of Internal Economy and the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee initially resisted the requests on the grounds that such a review was not within the auditor general’s mandate.
“It was really public pressure that then forced them to invite the office in. It just took a very long time,” she recalled.
Mr. Dye said that he encountered far less resistance from Parliamentary administration during his tenure. At one point, deputy auditor general Rheal Chatelain was installed as acting head of House administration.
Mr. Dye agreed with Ms. Fraser’s recommendation that both Houses of Parliament be audited every 10 years.
“It should be done just because it’s good management to do it,” said Mr. Dye, who recently returned from a seven-week trip to Namibia where he provided advice on government auditing. “You do an audit, and follow up [on recommendations] within two years, so you’re getting two every 10 years.”
The final report, completed after Ms. Fraser’s term as auditor general ended in 2011, identified problems in both the House and the Senate’s financial administration. Parliament is not obligated to allow a future audit by the Auditor General’s Office.
In the case of the Senate, the Auditor General’s Office found that some Senators expense claims lacked sufficient documentation, and identified vagueness in some Senate rules.
The report on the House of Commons found that procurement practices did not follow House guidelines, and detailed an instance where a contractor was awarded a $600,000 contract without meeting the statement of requirements.
Sen. Wallin’s expenses were reportedly under review before the controversy as part of a random expense review being conducted in response to the auditor general’s report.
The Hill Times asked Sen. Wallin’s office to confirm whether or not she had repaid any amount.
“The review is still underway—I am participating fully and await the outcome of the process,” Sen. Wallin replied by email.
Sen. Duffy, who recently stated that he would repay the expenses to put an end to the “distraction” of media scrutiny, did not respond to a request for details regarding his repayment.
Another Conservative Senator, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, recently voluntarily repaid a $917 housing allowance claim after permanently relocating to the National Capital Region.
Ms. Fraser said that it’s not unusual for an individual to repay an amount of money as a result of audit findings.
“In the course of an audit the expenses that these people claim will be reviewed with them, so they could decide that maybe they did make a mistake and shouldn’t have claimed this, and then pay it back,” Ms. Fraser explained. “These people live in a very public world. Sometimes the fact that this is made public is pretty strong punishment in and of itself.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: CHRIS PLECASH
No comments:
Post a Comment