Senator Gerry St. Germain (retired)

Province: British Columbia

Appointment date: 23 June 1993

Retirement date: 6 November 2012

Observations—general

On the basis of information available, we have been unable to determine whether all the Senator’s expenses were incurred primarily for parliamentary business and with due regard for the use of public funds.

1. We found expenses of $55,588 that we determined were not primarily for parliamentary business, and expenses of at least $12,000 for which we had conflicting or insufficient information to determine that they had been incurred for parliamentary business.

2. The Senator stated that he shredded his parliamentary documentation and that, consequently, he did not have sufficient information to answer our questions about each travel claim. Due to this lack of documentation, the Senator gave us access to electronic records of the emails for his office. We have based our findings on the information we received.

Observations—travel

We found several instances of travel expenses claimed by the Senator that were not primarily for parliamentary business.

3. During the audit period, the Senator made six trips to Edmonton, either as a stopover or as a final destination. According to the travel claims, the purpose of the travel was to conduct parliamentary business or meet with First Nations representatives. However, the Senator was an active member of the board of directors of a private group of companies based in Edmonton and he attended board meetings during these trips. We determined that the trips were taken to pursue the private business interests of the Senator. The cost of these trips, including incremental costs of the stopovers, and including airfare and per diems, was $4,415.

Observations—staff travel

We found several instances of travel expenses incurred by staff members or contractors and approved by the Senator that were not primarily for parliamentary business.

4. The Senator used his home for fundraising and other events for third parties. During the audit period, the Senator’s staff attended six events that were held at the Senator’s home: two events in support of a charity and four political party events. They also attended other events, including his 50th wedding celebration, an awards gala where the Senator was a recipient, and a regional retirement party for him. The Senator stated that the Senate’s rules did not prohibit staff travel when it was required to support Senators within their respective regions and when it was related to public business deemed to be significant. He further stated that he was rewarding his staff for their hard work and that the staff worked on constituency and partisan work from his home office during the summer months. Because these events involved the personal activities of the Senator, we determined that the travel by staff members was not primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the staff travel was $43,727.

Observations—goods and services

We found that there was conflicting or insufficient information that prevented us from determining whether contracting expenses were for parliamentary business.

5. We observed that payments were made to a contractor who invoiced the Senator and another Senator for the same dates. From April to October 2012, we observed that there was a total of 101 days when both Senators had been separately invoiced for 7.5 hours by the contractor on the same dates. We are concerned that the contractor may have invoiced for work not performed or work performed beyond the terms of the contract. We also observed that, before he retired, the Senator amended the contract for the same contractor. The amendment resulted in an increase to the contractor’s daily rate, and the full amount of the original contract was paid before the Senator’s retirement. On the basis of the available information, we estimated that the potential amount related to these issues was at least $12,000.

6. The Senator hired another contractor to help him with communication plans for his retirement. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation for the work performed. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The amount of this contract was $6,250.

Observations—other

We found other expenses that were not for parliamentary business or were not in accordance with the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines.

7. According to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, it is the responsibility of the Senator to document the use of gifts and other promotional items that have an individual value over $50. The Senator incurred expenses for gifts over $50, without adequate documentation. The cost of these items was $728.

8. The Senator claimed a hospitality expense of $468 for a dinner meeting. The Senator stated that the purpose of the dinner was to wrap up parliamentary business. However, other information indicated that this event was a family dinner.

The former Senator’s comments

Further to your letter of April 22, 2015, and further to my telephone conversation with [a member of the audit team] of April 30, 2015, I am responding to your letter containing your proposed final conclusions of your audit of my former Senate office. Let me state that I disagree with the presentation of your findings.

In my letter of March 27, 2015, I asked [a member of the audit team] to explain the definition of the term “parliamentary business”, and how the term was being applied against the audit objective. Your office has not responded.

The presentation and tone of your general observations insinuate that I misappropriated my office resources in a nefarious manner. I find these apparent accusations to be a defamatory affront to my personal integrity. I have stated to your auditors time and again that the shredding of my documents was done as a necessity related to my move to a smaller residence in advance of my prior knowledge of an audit being conducted. The timing of this event and my full explanation is missing from your conclusions.

You make note my travel to Edmonton not being for public benefit. Your conclusions fail to mention that in absence of other supporting documentation, I provided your office with a substantive list of people to call who could speak to the Parliamentary nature of my work with First Nations in the area. During these trips, I worked with a number of First Nations people on the development of legislation to enable First Nations Self Government. Bill S 216, which was tabled on my final day in the Senate, the Bill’s 4th iteration under my leadership, was a cornerstone work of my career. My trips to Edmonton encapsulated this and other works of public benefit.

You make note of the travel of my office staff not being for public benefit. Once again, in the absence of supporting documentation, I provided your office with a substantive list of people to call, including members of my former staff and other public office holders, who would have been able to speak to the public business and support to me that my staff provided on these trips. To my knowledge, your office has not contacted anyone.

With respect to the individuals on contract to my office, I required extra support during my final year. I demanded significant results from these people and compensated them fairly and within the rules of the Senate for the work that was performed.

Let me state that the information contained within this response was done by me from memory to the best of my recollection. I believe I operated within the rules and my office consulted with Senate Administration on major expenditures to ensure compliance. I am prepared to defend this response and my previous communications with your office in the public realm if necessary.