Senator Rod A. A. Zimmer (resigned)

Province: Manitoba

Appointment date: 2 August 2005

Resignation date: 2 August 2013

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 Winnipeg and his declared secondary residence was in Ottawa throughout the audit period. The Senator stated that he paid income and property taxes in Manitoba and held a driver’s licence and a health card from that province. Given these declarations, a normal travel pattern would involve regular travel from Winnipeg to Ottawa and back, with much of the Senator’s time being spent in Winnipeg. The Senator stated that he had always considered Winnipeg to be his primary residence but that, for personal reasons, it was necessary for him to be in Ottawa more frequently.

2. During the audit period, the Senator claimed travel expenses for 24 trips to Winnipeg. For 14 of these trips, the Senator flew to Winnipeg and returned to Ottawa on the same day. The remaining 10 trips included a total of 19 nights for travel to Winnipeg. Furthermore, in our review of travel claims and other available information, we found that the Senator stayed in Ottawa for 613 of the 731 days of the audit period. On the basis of our review of the Senator’s travel patterns, including the fact that he spent extended periods of time in Ottawa with no evidence of parliamentary business taking place, 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, those living expenses, including accommodations and per diems, were $47,132. Furthermore, the Senator and his spouse took a number of round trips from Ottawa to Winnipeg, during which no parliamentary business was undertaken. The cost of these trips, including airfare, car rentals, taxis, and per diems, was $102,524.

Findings—travel

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

4. The Senator took four day-trips to Montréal and one trip to Saskatoon, but was not able to provide information about their purposes. 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 purpose of these trips or the events that took place during them. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of these trips, including airfare, mileage, accommodations, taxis, and per diems, was $6,293.

5. The Senator took a one-day trip to Toronto and another trip to Saskatoon. In the first instance, the Senator’s calendar indicated a board meeting of a corporation of which he was a director at that time; the other trip was for personal activities. The cost of the trips, including airfare, taxis, and per diems, was $3,578.

Findings—goods and services

We found instances of expenses for professional services claimed by the Senator that were not for parliamentary business.

6. The Senator claimed expenses for two contracts for professional services. One contract related to the provision of research services. The other contract related to the provision of research and writing services, including coordination and liaison. The Senator stated that the services related to research required for a National Defence trip and research on war-torn countries. 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 purpose of these contracts or work performed for them. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of these two contracts was $12,453.

Findings—other

We found other expenses that were incurred for personal activities; that were ineligible according to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines; or for which we did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were for parliamentary business.

7. According to the Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines, it is the responsibility of the Senator to provide his own transportation within the National Capital Region, when not engaged in parliamentary business. We found that the Senator or his spouse incurred expenses of $2,072 for taxis in Ottawa for personal activities, and expenses of $645 for which there was little or no information to demonstrate that they were for parliamentary business.

8. 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. Gifts and other promotional items that have an individual value over $100 or are used for fundraising are not permitted. We found that the Senator incurred expenses totalling $705 for gifts that were individually greater than $100 or were donated for fundraising raffles, and gifts and other promotional items totalling $612 that were individually over $50 without any documentation as to whether they were for parliamentary business.

9. Although the Senator retired after our audit period, we also found that four items, including a digital camera and computer equipment, had not been returned to the Senate.

The former Senator’s comments

Since the Auditor General has limited my right to reply to only 500 words, I will focus on the major issue contained in his report, namely his conclusion with respect to my residency, from which his findings on my travel claims and living expenses flow.

The Auditor General has concluded that because of my travel patterns and length of time spent in Ottawa, Ottawa was the location of my primary residence. Unfortunately, serious health concerns, including recurring throat cancer and pneumonia, required me to cut back on my travel between Ottawa and my home in Winnipeg, and ultimately led to my early retirement. But in coming to his conclusion on my residency, the Auditor General has ignored the evidence the former Law Clerk of the Senate, Mark Audcent, presented under oath before the Ontario Court of Justice in the ongoing trial of Senator Michael Duffy.

Mr. Audcent has testified that there is “no percentage of the year requirement” for a Senator to be in his home province for the purposes of residency. He further explained to the court that there were in his view four categories of what he called “indicators of residence.”

First, there is “physical presence.” I lived in a home in Winnipeg which I purchased in 1981. Second, “is where you participate in the community.” I paid my taxes in Manitoba, and voted in federal, provincial and civic elections in that province. Thirdly, “where you get your government services from.” My health card and driver’s license were from Manitoba, and my vehicles were registered and plated in Manitoba. And lastly, there is what Mr. Audcent described as “societal relations.” My parish was the Holy Rosary Church, located a short walk from my home. As a former president of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, I remain on its board to this day. I also served on the boards of the Burton Cummings Theatre and the Millennium Centre. I led and participated in major fundraising drives for charitable causes with other notable Winnipeggers, such as Izzy and Gail Asper.

For this final category, Mr. Audcent told the court “all of those social connections add up to a package saying this person is resident here.” I agree. Winnipeg was always my home.

Finally, I am not clear how the Auditor General can make a public pronouncement with respect to Senate residency rules and their application to my circumstances without appearing to be interfering in the judicial proceedings now taking place in the trial of Senator Duffy, where the issue of residency and the interpretation of the Senate Rules concerning residency are central to the proceedings. Will this be seen as prejudging the conclusion Justice Charles Vaillancourt will reach on the same matter, and what if Justice Vaillancourt does not agree with the Auditor General’s interpretation? The sub judice principle applies in order to ensure the proper administration of justice, and I am surprised that it is not being honoured in this instance.