Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

Province: Quebec

Appointment date: 29 January 2010

Observations—general

1. On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the Senator’s expenses were incurred for parliamentary business, and with due regard for the use of public funds. We found expenses of $61,076 for which we had conflicting or insufficient information to determine that they had been incurred for parliamentary business.

Findings—residency

We found several instances where expenses claimed by the Senator were ineligible for reimbursement because he had not updated his declaration of primary residence.

2. According to the Senator’s annual declarations of primary and secondary residences, his primary residence was located in Sherbrooke, Quebec. We expected the Senator’s travel patterns to reflect that situation.

3. We found a change in the duration of trips between the Senator’s declared primary residence and the National Capital Region. From January 2012 to December 2012, the Senator spent 45 days in Sherbrooke, compared with 90 days spent there during the other periods covered by the audit. The remaining days were spent in Ottawa or elsewhere. Further, we found that the Senator spent more time in the Ottawa area than he had in the preceding period, including days when the Senate was not sitting. The Senator stated that he had made several same-day round trips. We found that from March 2013, the Senator resumed residence near Sherbrooke. On the basis of the information that was available to us, we determined that the Senator’s primary residence during 2012 was in the Ottawa area. The Senator thus claimed for expenses that would not have been eligible for reimbursement if he had declared his primary residence to be in the Ottawa area. The expenses totalled $15,826, including accommodation expenses and per diems. This figure includes $908 repaid by the Senator in March 2013 for the months of July and August 2012, after an internal investigation conducted by the Senate. During the period from January 2012 to December 2012, the Senator made a number of trips from the National Capital Region to Sherbrooke that were not for parliamentary business in the amount of $5,529, including mileage and per diems.

Findings—travel

We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator about which there was conflicting or insufficient information to determine whether they were incurred for parliamentary business.

4. Before his appointment, the Senator gave speeches and provided comments during radio broadcasts on behalf of an organization founded and headed by him. The Senator stated that during the speeches, he sold the book he had written, and that the profits went into a fund managed by the organization he headed up until the time of his appointment. After his appointment, the Senator continued to conduct those activities. He received reimbursement of his claims for travel expenses and per diems in connection with the activities. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. Given the conflicting information, the fact that the trips were incurred to pursue the Senator’s personal interests, and the lack of other information, we were unable to determine whether the expenses were for parliamentary business. These expenses totalled $38,577 and included mainly mileage and accommodation expenses, as well as per diems.

Findings—other

We found several instances where the Senator incurred expenses that were not for parliamentary business or were not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.

5. We determined that hospitality expenses incurred by the Senator, totalling $399, were not for parliamentary business.

6. We determined that $745 in expenses, including postage for mailing copies of the Senator’s book and taxi expenses, were personal and thus not eligible for reimbursement under Senate policies.

The Senator’s comments

[Translation]

1- Residency

• Throughout the audit period, my primary residence was at 1633 Morand St. in Sherbrooke. I still own the property.
• During the period, I was in the process of a separation. However, I continued to live in Sherbrooke until April 2013.
• All my personal documentation showed Sherbrooke as my address: my driver’s licence, health insurance and credit cards, and various permits.
• For income tax purposes, my primary residence was Sherbrooke.
• Almost all my personal belongings were in Sherbrooke.
• Bills were issued in my name (utilities, taxes, insurance and maintenance). I paid for all expenses of the residence, including my spouse’s expenses.
• Sherbrooke was my primary residence under the rules of the Senate, the Civil Code of Québec, and income tax rules.
• All my personal, family, and social ties were to Sherbrooke. A temporary absence from my residence is not relevant.
• In July and August 2012, I filed claims for private accommodation expenses. I subsequently voluntarily repaid the amounts received.

2- Travel

• On 6 occasions in 2012, because of my mother’s illness and death, I travelled between Ottawa and Saint-Jérôme. I changed my destination at the last minute and omitted to inform my staff. No claim for travel expenses ought to have been filed. This was an error on my part and I am willing to repay the difference, as I told the OAG several months ago.
• During the audit period, all other travel was to Sherbrooke.
• The speeches and radio broadcasts in which I participated in my capacity as an advocate for victims’ rights were all for parliamentary business.
• I receive no remuneration for giving the speeches or for book sales at the events.
• This work of raising awareness is an integral part of my duties as a Senator. I agreed to represent victims of crime and their families. It is unthinkable that I would be able to perform this work without travelling outside Ottawa.
• My presentations can be found at www.boisvenu.ca.
• The fact that a parliamentarian advocates for a cause before, during or after his time as a legislator has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the advocacy is or is not part of his duties as a parliamentarian.

3- Other

• As part of my work, I receive a number of stakeholders in my office and sometimes offer them refreshments.
• As an advocate for the rights of victims and their families, I sometimes send copies of my book or other publications. Giving a voice to the voiceless is part of my duties as a parliamentarian.

I regret that, instead of taking into account the arguments that I presented in our discussions, the OAG has maintained positions adopted even before our first meeting.

I am willing to abide by the decision of the Internal Economy Committee.

I think it is important for the Committee to carefully consider the issues raised by the OAG, that is, the concept of primary residence and the definition of parliamentary business.