Senator Terry Stratton (retired)

Province: Manitoba

Appointment date: 25 March 1993

Retirement date: 16 March 2013

Findings—travel

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

1. From 15 to 18 June 2012, the Senator travelled round-trip from Ottawa to Calgary, instead of travelling home to Winnipeg, the location of his primary residence. His spouse travelled round-trip from Winnipeg to Calgary to accompany him and returned to Winnipeg on 20 June 2012. The Senator’s calendar did not include any information on the nature of parliamentary business that took place in Calgary for that period. The Senator stated that the purpose was a farewell trip and that he also visited family. 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 this trip or the events that took place during it. On the basis of the information available, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The incremental cost of the trip, calculated as the cost of airfare for the Senator and his spouse, car rental, accommodations, and per diems, less the cost of airfare for the Senator flying home to Winnipeg and returning to Ottawa, was $3,288.

2. From 22 to 26 November 2012, the Senator again travelled round-trip from Ottawa to Calgary. On the same dates, his spouse joined him from Winnipeg. According to the expense claims, the purpose of the trip was for meetings. The Senate Administrative Rules state that every person who uses Senate resources is responsible to account for that use. Based on the information available, including the explanations we received from the Senator on the purpose of the trip, we determined that these expenses had not been incurred for parliamentary business. The incremental cost of the trip, calculated as the cost of airfare for the Senator and his spouse, car rental, accommodations, and per diems, less the cost of airfare for the Senator flying home to Winnipeg and returning to Ottawa, was $2,178.

The former Senator’s comments

Since I have been told by you to limit my response to 500 words or less, I shall be brief. I also ask that there be no editing of this response.

My reaction to your latest letter is to disagree once again with its findings, even though there has been a reduction in the amount requested.

In the first instance of travel, as I reported to you previously, I travelled at the request of my leadership in order to deal with a sensitive issue that needed to be dealt with directly with the individual. It did not to my knowledge, involve the government; rather its aim was to limit embarrassment to two of the countries institutions. I view that as one of the roles of a senator and one that I have utilized at other times in my former role as a whip, with other individuals or senators. In each case I carried out meetings face to face with the individual involved in order to send a clear message, in an attempt, not always successful, of preventing a problem from occurring.

The second instance of travel can be resolved by accepting that I left the Senate two weeks early, recognizing that any expense on my part that was deemed to be inadmissible by you, could be covered off by the savings accrued to the Senate in air travel, hotels and per diem expenses for those two weeks. That was the primary reason that I left two weeks before my mandatory retirement date.

Lastly, I must implore the Prime Minister, at the time of the next election, in order to limit expense, to have a referendum on the abolition of the Senate. This despite the decision of the Supreme Court who seem to limit their decisions to narrow confines of their interpretation of the law.

After all, who governs Canada, the Supreme Court, or Parliament?

The Prime Minister has a higher obligation on behalf of all Canadians to call this question in order to put it behind us, once and for all.