Senator Janis G. Johnson

Province: Manitoba

Appointment date: 27 September 1990

Findings—travel

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

1. During the audit period, the Senator frequently travelled between Winnipeg and Vancouver. The travel claims indicated that the purpose of the trips was for meetings or Senate business. However, on the basis of available information, we found that the Senator often spent several days in Vancouver, with only one or two short appointments related to Senate business. Furthermore, we observed a pattern of those trips coinciding with statutory holidays and occurring over the summer.

• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver, from 16 to 23 April 2011, included Good Friday. According to the documentation provided by the Senator, she attended two meetings in relation to her work on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and she also had private time while in Vancouver. However, the Senator’s calendar did not indicate any business meetings during the travel period, but rather indicated personal activities. The cost of the trip, for airfare and taxis, was $3,007.
• For a trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver on 2 June 2011, and from Vancouver to Ottawa on 5 June, the Senator’s calendar indicated a one-hour personal event on 3 June. She stated that there was no Senate business in Vancouver during this trip, because the meeting that she had scheduled for 4 June was cancelled. The incremental expense claimed by the Senator for this trip was $3,426.
• For a round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 15 to 19 August 2011, the Senator’s calendar did not indicate any meetings. The Senator stated that she had two meetings in Vancouver. One meeting pertained to a project related to her involvement with a health centre in Winnipeg, and the other to the film industry. However, the Senator did not provide additional information that would demonstrate that the trip was primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $3,631.
• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 6 to 11 October 2011 included Thanksgiving. The Senator’s calendar for the travel period showed a three-hour film festival event on 8 October, and a lunch on 9 October. The Senator stated that this trip was part of both her regional role as a Senator and her constitutional duty. The Senator did not provide information about the extent of her participation at the film festival. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses were not primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $4,350.
• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 30 December 2011 to 13 January 2012 took place when the Senate was not in session. The Senator stated that she travelled to Vancouver for a meeting. The trip was originally planned to end on 9 January 2012. However, according to the documentation on file, illness prevented the Senator from returning to Winnipeg on the planned date. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses were not primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $3,115.
• A round trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver from 15 to 23 August 2012 took place when the Senate was not in session. The Senator stated that she met with an official from a federal government organization associated with the film industry and with an individual in relation to her work on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. However, the Senator did not provide additional information that would demonstrate that the trip was primarily for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip was $2,393.
• On 9 November 2012, the Senator travelled from Ottawa to Vancouver, and then to Winnipeg on 15 November 2012. According to the documentation provided by the Senator, she had meetings with two individuals—one to discuss a Senate energy report, and another to discuss fundraising for a film festival, which was in the Senator’s region, and for which she serves as a member of the board of directors. The incremental cost of airfare, accommodations, and taxis in Vancouver was $2,784.

The Senator’s comments

I am disappointed by the analysis and conclusions reached by the OAG.

The audit makes no reference to the Senators’ Travel Policy under which these expenses were submitted. That is what guided me when I incurred them. Shouldn’t that guide the audit?

That Policy explicitly recognizes that Senators can combine parliamentary work with private business and personal travel with the only proviso that a Senator should not seek reimbursement for any expenses that relate to personal matters - which I never did.

The OAG also observes that some of my trips occurred around holiday periods. The Policy also permits this. Given our sitting schedule, much of the business done by Senators outside of Ottawa can only occur during holiday breaks.

Because I attended to personal matters on these trips or they occurred around holidays should not confound the fact that their primary purpose was always for parliamentary business. The genesis for each trip was parliamentary business and any personal business or holidays were only considered and added after that. In other words, my personal interests did not drive the agenda, parliamentary business did.

I have been a Senator for almost 25 years and I have always been mindful of how I use public funds. I have never sought to have the public pay for my personal travel. In that regard, it should be noted that during the period under review I used only 53 travel points out of an allowable 128 and all of my expenses, including travel, came in under budget.

I also note that the OAG has provided only a brief summary in regard to the challenged trips and has stated that I did not provide “any” or “sufficient” additional information. That is inaccurate. For each of the trips, I provided the names of the individuals with whom I met and their contact information along with background emails and other documents confirming the meetings. I also provided hundreds of pages of supporting information to demonstrate the purpose of these meetings and how they relate to parliamentary business. The OAG makes no mention of any of this.

In a subsequent discussion I had with the OAG, they conceded that indeed on each of these trips there were meetings which involved parliamentary business (even though the OAG summaries leave the contrary impression). They just ‘felt’ that the purpose of the trips was more personal than parliamentary.

In saying this, the OAG has applied a factor not even included in the Senator’s Travel Policy. The Policy has always permitted the combination of personal business with parliamentary business; it does not provide for and the approval process has never included a subjective determination as to which was predominant. Frankly, such a provision would be arbitrary and unworkable unless it included clear criteria so we could know in advance how it will be applied. In the absence of those criteria, the OAG has reached a subjective conclusion, applying criteria not part of the Policy and contrary to the true facts.