Senator James S. Cowan

Province: Nova Scotia

Appointment date: 24 March 2005

Findings—travel

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

1. On three occasions, the Senator and his spouse travelled to Toronto for the weekend either as a separate trip or a stopover while returning to Halifax from Ottawa. The purpose given on the claims for these trips was parliamentary business, including meetings. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. We received no additional documentation or explanations for the purpose of these trips or the events that took place during that time. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The total cost of the trips, for airfare, taxi, car rental, accommodations, and per diems, was $10,397.

The Senator’s comments

The three identified trips to Toronto took place over the course of 2011. I submitted the three travel claims on official Senate travel claim forms, describing the purpose of the trips as “performing Senate related work” or as “meetings in Toronto related to Senate Business.” The claims were accompanied by Air Canada boarding passes and receipts. Senate finance officials processed the claims in accordance with the then current administrative practices, applying the then current expense rules, and paid the claims as submitted. No request for additional information, explanation or documentation was made.

I of course agree that I am “responsible to account” for the use of Senate resources, and had I been asked for more information, documentation or explanation at the time of my claim or shortly thereafter, I would have readily provided it. However, there having been no requirement under the Senate expense rules or guidelines to retain any additional documentation or records at the time of the claims, and with my email Inbox not having been backed up by the Senate for most of the period in question, it has not been possible to recreate my activities from memory alone.

However, the pattern that emerges from other trips I have made to Toronto over the years and for which there are records, show meetings with various NGOs, students, educators, health researchers and practitioners, community leaders, as well as current and former members of Parliament, all of which related to parliamentary business. Moreover, when I have travelled anywhere on private business, I have, of course, paid the costs of such travel myself.

When submitting my claims, I was aware of and believed I could rely on the Senate Administrative Rules (SARS). Section 2.(1) of chapter 2:05 of those Rules states: “Where a Senator makes a request to the Senate Administration that appears to be contrary to a law, rule, policy or practice, the Senate Administration shall advise the Senator and, where a direction exists in writing, refer the senator to the direction.”

Mr. Mark Audcent, the then Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, authored the Senate Administrative Rules. In recent sworn testimony before the Ontario Court of Justice he observed that by virtue of Section 2.(1) there was a “mandatory” duty for the Senate Administration to advise a Senator if anything appeared “to be out of line” with a particular travel claim. At no time in the almost four years since I submitted those three claims and was informed that they had been approved did Senate Finance request additional documentation or explanations. In these circumstances, I believe it was reasonable for me to conclude that my claims had in fact conformed to all relevant Senate rules, policies and practices.