Though Mike Duffy has always called himself ‘an Islander', those who know him know that he has worked and lived in Ottawa for over 30 years.
In 2008, questions were raised about his qualifications for the Senate because of his long residency in Ottawa. Mr. Duffy continues to live at his home in Kanata in the National Capital Region and he claimed living expenses for that home on the basis his ‘primary' residence was the cottage he owns and occupies in Cavendish during the summer.
When former colleagues in the media began examining Mr. Duffy's expenses, they discovered these claims, and similar ones from fellow senators, Mac Harb,, and Patrick Bazeau. The ensuing controversy saw the Senate hire Deloitte, a firm of accountants, to look into the matter.
This week their report was made public. Anticipating problems, Mr. Duffy of his own accord decided a couple of months ago that perhaps he didn't understand the rules and may have misinterpreted them, so in the interest of clearing the whole matter up, he voluntarily offered to pay back what he had ‘erroneously' claimed. A terse Senate news release three weeks ago stated that Mr. Duffy had paid back $90,172.24. That included interest and $1,000 for expenses claimed while vacationing in Florida.
Following the Deloitte report, a Senate subcommittee also ordered Senator Harb to pay back some $51,000 and Senator Brazeau $48,000 in wrongly claimed living expenses in the National Capital Region.
In case of both these gentlemen, the subcommittee reviewed the language used by the Senate in outlining the rules around making such claims and, in both cases, the subcommittee found "this language to be unambiguous and, plainly, if a senator resides primarily in the NCR, he or she should not be claiming living expenses for the NCR."
It should be noted that Senator Brazeau has been booted out of the Conservative caucus and the Senate pending the outcome of criminal charges, which are unrelated to the issue before the subcommittee, and Senator Harb is a Liberal.
In the case of Mr. Duffy, the subcommittee fudged things by saying the wording around primary residence isn't as clear as it might be, however it opted to keep his money and it plans to monitor his expenses closely for the next year.
Deloitte, in making its finding on Mr. Duffy's expenses, did an extensive review for the 18 months between April 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2012. Of those 549 days, it reported he spent 164 of them in P.E.I., and most of the remainder in Ottawa. What it didn't highlight was of the 164 days, 123 were during July, August and part of September - the summer holiday period for the Senate. Summer holidays are when most people use their cottages. And few would consider the cottage to be their primary residence.
From Nov. 11, 2011 until Feb 10, 2012, Mr. Duffy spent exactly one day on the Island. He was also ‘home' for three days in March, one day in April, three days in May and another four days in June before the summer holidays set in.
In total, it amounts to the same time he spent in Florida.
The Deloitte report also listed four primary residence indicators. Mr. Duffy apparently has an Island driver's licence, but he doesn't have an Island health card and he doesn't pay his income taxes from an Island address. They didn't have enough information to determine whether he is registered to vote as a citizen of P.E.I.
Why should Mr. Duffy's residency be an issue? Well, for openers, maybe just to acknowledge the battles our forefathers fought against absentee landlords and officials appointed from outside the colony. When they wrote the Constitution they didn't just say a senator had to own property, they also wrote: "he shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed."
If we ignore this issue now that it has been raised, what's to prevent another prime minister from appointing a friend from Ontario or Alberta who has absolutely no connection with the place other than they own a cottage here?
According to the Constitution, if you aren't a resident you can't be a senator. The provincial government should ask the courts to clarify the term ‘residency', and who has the right to be our representatives in the Senate. Surely it must take more than Mike Duffy simply swearing an oath that he's a resident, when all other indicators say otherwise.
Original Article
Source: theguardian.pe.ca
Author: Alan Holman
In 2008, questions were raised about his qualifications for the Senate because of his long residency in Ottawa. Mr. Duffy continues to live at his home in Kanata in the National Capital Region and he claimed living expenses for that home on the basis his ‘primary' residence was the cottage he owns and occupies in Cavendish during the summer.
When former colleagues in the media began examining Mr. Duffy's expenses, they discovered these claims, and similar ones from fellow senators, Mac Harb,, and Patrick Bazeau. The ensuing controversy saw the Senate hire Deloitte, a firm of accountants, to look into the matter.
This week their report was made public. Anticipating problems, Mr. Duffy of his own accord decided a couple of months ago that perhaps he didn't understand the rules and may have misinterpreted them, so in the interest of clearing the whole matter up, he voluntarily offered to pay back what he had ‘erroneously' claimed. A terse Senate news release three weeks ago stated that Mr. Duffy had paid back $90,172.24. That included interest and $1,000 for expenses claimed while vacationing in Florida.
Following the Deloitte report, a Senate subcommittee also ordered Senator Harb to pay back some $51,000 and Senator Brazeau $48,000 in wrongly claimed living expenses in the National Capital Region.
In case of both these gentlemen, the subcommittee reviewed the language used by the Senate in outlining the rules around making such claims and, in both cases, the subcommittee found "this language to be unambiguous and, plainly, if a senator resides primarily in the NCR, he or she should not be claiming living expenses for the NCR."
It should be noted that Senator Brazeau has been booted out of the Conservative caucus and the Senate pending the outcome of criminal charges, which are unrelated to the issue before the subcommittee, and Senator Harb is a Liberal.
In the case of Mr. Duffy, the subcommittee fudged things by saying the wording around primary residence isn't as clear as it might be, however it opted to keep his money and it plans to monitor his expenses closely for the next year.
Deloitte, in making its finding on Mr. Duffy's expenses, did an extensive review for the 18 months between April 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2012. Of those 549 days, it reported he spent 164 of them in P.E.I., and most of the remainder in Ottawa. What it didn't highlight was of the 164 days, 123 were during July, August and part of September - the summer holiday period for the Senate. Summer holidays are when most people use their cottages. And few would consider the cottage to be their primary residence.
From Nov. 11, 2011 until Feb 10, 2012, Mr. Duffy spent exactly one day on the Island. He was also ‘home' for three days in March, one day in April, three days in May and another four days in June before the summer holidays set in.
In total, it amounts to the same time he spent in Florida.
The Deloitte report also listed four primary residence indicators. Mr. Duffy apparently has an Island driver's licence, but he doesn't have an Island health card and he doesn't pay his income taxes from an Island address. They didn't have enough information to determine whether he is registered to vote as a citizen of P.E.I.
Why should Mr. Duffy's residency be an issue? Well, for openers, maybe just to acknowledge the battles our forefathers fought against absentee landlords and officials appointed from outside the colony. When they wrote the Constitution they didn't just say a senator had to own property, they also wrote: "he shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed."
If we ignore this issue now that it has been raised, what's to prevent another prime minister from appointing a friend from Ontario or Alberta who has absolutely no connection with the place other than they own a cottage here?
According to the Constitution, if you aren't a resident you can't be a senator. The provincial government should ask the courts to clarify the term ‘residency', and who has the right to be our representatives in the Senate. Surely it must take more than Mike Duffy simply swearing an oath that he's a resident, when all other indicators say otherwise.
Original Article
Source: theguardian.pe.ca
Author: Alan Holman
No comments:
Post a Comment