Senator William Rompkey (retired)

Province: Newfoundland and Labrador

Appointment date: 21 September 1995

Retirement date: 13 May 2011

Findings—residency

We found several instances of expenses claimed by the Senator that were ineligible because of an incorrect declaration of his primary residence.

1. The Senator’s declared primary residence was in St. John’s and his declared secondary residence was in Ottawa throughout the audit period. Given these declarations, a normal travel pattern would involve regular travel from St. John’s to Ottawa and back, with much of the Senator’s time being spent in St. John’s.

2. Of the 42 days during the audit period before his retirement, the Senator stayed 8 days in St. John’s. He spent 26 days in Ottawa. To determine whether this was an ongoing pattern of travel, we reviewed the Senator’s expense claims for the 2010–11 fiscal year, and found that the Senator spent 53 days in St. John’s and 161 days in Ottawa during that period. On the basis of our review of the Senator’s travel patterns and our understanding of his roles and responsibilities, we found that he spent extended periods of time in Ottawa. Accordingly, we determined that the Senator’s primary residence was in Ottawa.

3. The Senator claimed for living expenses that would not have been allowed if he had declared Ottawa as his primary residence. During the audit period, the amount of those living expenses, including accommodations for 42 days and per diems for 23 days, was $3,134.

4. After his retirement in May 2011, the Senator claimed two trips from Ottawa to St. John’s and back. Senate rules permitted travel between the Senator’s residence and Ottawa after retirement, to complete parliamentary business. However, given that the Senator’s primary residence was in Ottawa at the time of his retirement, we determined that these claims were not eligible. The cost of the two trips was $14,158.

The former Senator’s comments

I have been retired for 4 years, have had limited access to files and to consultations with Auditor General staff.

I have reviewed the second audit assessment and do not agree that the conclusions are factually based. The finding that my primary residence was in Ottawa not St. John’s is at variance with the facts as well as the 1998 22^nd report of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy.

Mark Audcent, former Law Clerk of the Senate, in sworn testimony before the Ontario Court on 8 April 2015 agreed that the 22^nd Report “clearly linked Provincial Residence with being the primary residence.” And, as the court also heard, the Primary Residence Declaration Form would not permit me to designate my Ottawa residence as my primary even had I wanted to because, in Mr. Audcent’s words, “it requires you to say that it’s the residence in the province you represent.”

I represented Newfoundland and Labrador in the Senate from 1995 to 2011, after 23 years representing it in the House of Commons. Most of my family live there, I paid taxes there, had a NL health card, voted there, and co-owned a house in St. John’s where I lived when not in Ottawa (and still do). I am a member of the Naval Officers Association of NL, the Crow’s Nest naval club and continue to be involved with the Feildians as well as the Alumni of Memorial University, the institution which conferred on me an honourary LLD for my service to the Province. The Auditor General is applying a test that was rejected by the former Law Clerk in order to reach a conclusion that is not supported by my clear and many attachments to my Province while I was a member of the Senate.

The Auditor General has concluded that Ottawa was my primary residence ignoring the testimony of Mr. Audcent who said there is “no majority of the year requirement in your provincial residence” when determining Primary Residence. He also ignores that as Fisheries Committee Chair I had to spend considerable time in Ottawa as well as some 21 days travelling in BC, NS and NL with the Committee, and several more in Halifax on naval and fisheries business.

Respecting the two post retirement trips I took to NL, Senate Finance explicitly assured me in emails, which were shared with the Auditor General, that they fell within the rules. The Senate Clerk’s document Information for Departing Senators indicates that: “A former Senator who retired or resigned is entitled, for the purpose of closing the Senator’s office and otherwise winding up the Senator’s parliamentary affairs, to four travel points during a one-year period starting the day the person ceased to be a Senator. ...” Moreover, I always believed that if there were any problems with my claims I would be informed by Senate administration as they are obliged to do.