Senator Terry M. Mercer

Province: Nova Scotia

Appointment date: 7 November 2003

Findings—travel

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

1. We found four trips where the Senator’s spouse travelled from Halifax to Ottawa when the Senator was not in Ottawa at any time during the trip. The Senator stated that the purpose of those trips was for his spouse to attend to responsibilities related to their Ottawa residence. The Senate’s rules, policies, and guidelines recognize that a Senator’s parliamentary functions can result in frequent and lengthy periods of separation from family, and have provided for family-reunion travel as an important contributor to the health and well-being of Senators and their families. Given that the Senator was not in Ottawa, we determined that the spouse’s trips to Ottawa on these occasions did not respect the objective of family reunification. The cost of these trips, for transportation expenses, was $10,485.

2. We found that the Senator travelled on separate occasions to Saskatoon, Montreal, and Vancouver to attend events or meetings of an association of certified fundraising executives, of which he was a board member. The Senator stated that one of the association’s goals was to influence public policy affecting its members. On the basis of a review of the Senator’s calendar and other available information, we determined that these trips were incurred to pursue the interests of the association. The cost related to these trips, including transportation, accommodations, and per diems, was $15,401.

3. We found that the Senator travelled to Toronto on 15 December 2011 to attend the 100th anniversary of a curling club, of which the Senator was a member when he lived in Toronto. The Senator stated that the purpose of the trip was Senate-related business. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The cost of the trip, for transportation, accommodations, and per diems, was $3,452.

The Senator’s comments

I strongly object to these findings and do not agree with the rationale the Auditor General has used to identify them. The determinations presented in this report are based on the Auditor General’s interpretation of the rules and guidelines of the Senate in place at the time of the audit. My interpretation of these rules disagrees with the Auditor General’s determinations as all actions were in accordance with the rules and properly claimed as agreed upon and concurred with by Senate Administration.

From the time of my appointment to the Senate, I have maintained a primary residence in my province and a secondary residence in Ottawa which requires travel. These actions were in accordance with Senate rules and guidelines in place at the time.

All Senators have interests that they bring with them to the Senate. These past experiences give the Senate its unique ability to act on a variety of issues and represent a wide variety of stakeholders which involves meetings in Ottawa, my home province, and indeed across Canada and includes legislative business being carried out in the Senate by me. These actions were in accordance with Senate rules and guidelines in place at the time.

My business in the Senate involves maintaining connections with stakeholders, indeed all Canadians. Much of this business occurs in my home province but sometimes occurs in other areas of the country. Any travel that directly involves my interests in the Senate was in accordance with Senate rules and guidelines in place at the time.

In the spirit of better transparency and more accountability, the Senate has taken major steps over the past number of years to address issues. We have enhanced rules for many things, including travel, by working together as Senators with the administrative structures of the Senate. I followed the rules then and continue to follow them, as enhanced, now. At any time during my tenure as a Senator, when changes have been made to Senate policies and guidelines, I adhered to those changes. It was also never indicated to me that any actions on my part were outside of the rules that were in place at any time. I do not understand how the Auditor General believes otherwise.