Skip to main content

Senator Mike Duffy leaves a committee meeting in Ottawa last week.

SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The RCMP is looking into Senate expense claims and critics have more ammunition in their calls for abolition after three members of the Red Chamber were found to have improperly received tens of thousands of dollars in living expenses.

The Mounties issued a statement on Sunday saying the matter of payments made to senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb is being examined by the RCMP National Division's Sensitive and International Investigations Section.

"Based upon an evaluation of the information provided, the RCMP may or may not initiate an investigation," the RCMP said, adding that no further comment would be made by the force unless criminal charges are laid.

Story continues below advertisement

Independent audits conducted by Deloitte have found that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Brazeau and Mr. Harb improperly said their principal residences were more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill and, on that basis, received living expenses to which they were not entitled.

A committee composed of senators demanded that the money be repaid but did not ask the police to investigate, eliciting an angry response from opposition New Democrats who would like to see the Senate abolished.

"When you have an institution where nobody can be fired, you are going to have corruption, you are going to have people breaking the rules because they think they can break the rules," Charlie Angus, the NDP ethics critic, said Sunday.

"It doesn't seem that there is any way that Canadians can actually enforce the rules, and that's a huge problem of legitimacy," Mr. Angus said. "The Senate has shown throughout this scandal that their fundamental task is to protect their own and not to be accountable to Canadians."

As for the news that the police are looking into the expense claims even without a referral from the Senate, Mr. Angus said: "I will believe charges when I see them."

Mr. Harb quit the Liberal caucus and is refusing to return $51,482, saying he will take the matter to court. Mr. Brazeau, an independent, has not said whether he will repay $48,744. Mr. Duffy, a Conservative, voluntarily paid back $90,172.24 before the release of the audits, saying he had found the paperwork confusing.

When asked about a potential police investigation, Marjory LeBreton, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, said she had seen no evidence of RCMP interest in the matter.

Story continues below advertisement

But Ms. LeBreton pointed out that even the auditors' reports said the Senate rules are unclear in defining what constitutes a primary residence. And, she said, when the auditors were asked at a Senate committee if there was anything they found that would warrant further action, "the answer was no."

The reports of the auditors and those of the Senate committee that looked into the expenses of the three senators are public documents and could be used by the police in their work. But the RCMP would have to ask the Senate for any additional material such as forms relating to the actual expenses that were claimed.

Asked if the government would co-operate in the event of an RCMP investigation, Ms. LeBreton said: "It's a hypothetical question and I have no comment."

James Cowan, the Leader of the Senate opposition, said law-enforcement officials and lawyers who deal with criminal matters have told him that the RCMP is likely to follow a matter like this very thoroughly, and does not need a referral from a third party to launch an inquiry.

In the event of a full-fledged investigation, "I would assume that the Senate would co-operate fully, but that's not my decision," Mr. Cowan said.

As for renewed questions about the Senate's legitimacy, Mr. Cowan said there always have been and always will be critics of the Red Chamber and "when we are under attack anyway, as being unelected and unaccountable, then this is real fodder for that."

Story continues below advertisement

With reports from Kim Mackrael and Bill Curry

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter