Suspended Senator cost $700,000. for taxpayers

Topaz · November 5, 2010

Lib. Senator Raymond Lavigne, has been suspended three years ago and is still spending the taxpayers money. His charges of fraud, breach of trust and obstruction of justice. He is accused of misusing senate funds for travel and paying staffers to cut down a tree on his cottage property and this case is still in the courts. My question is why is it taking so long, to bring him to court to prove his guilt or innocence? May I also add, that no matter what party a person belongs, wrong is wrong and if he IS wrong , he should be gone from the senate!

Saipan · November 6, 2010

wrong is wrong and if he IS wrong , he should be gone from the senate!

after he returns the money.

William Ashley · November 9, 2010

Lib. Senator Raymond Lavigne, has been suspended three years ago and is still spending the taxpayers money. His charges of fraud, breach of trust and obstruction of justice. He is accused of misusing senate funds for travel and paying staffers to cut down a tree on his cottage property and this case is still in the courts. My question is why is it taking so long, to bring him to court to prove his guilt or innocence? May I also add, that no matter what party a person belongs, wrong is wrong and if he IS wrong , he should be gone from the senate!

ACCUSED. wait till after this concludes. Innocent until proven guilty, gawd you don't understand how important that virtue is until you are falsely accused or charged on false grounds to really appreciate that concept.

Innocent people are arrested and smeared every day. If this was so clear cut he wouldn't be accused, it would be done and clearly demonstrated.

I don't understand why you have trust in a corrupt non constitutional government establishment. You are bringing the law into it as a "de facto" basis of judgment - yet ignoring the non constitutionality of those enforcing the law. This is a little false in terms of premise if you ask me. Exercising legally is one thing, concurrently violating constitutional rights of your citizens on political grounds is not.

You might instead look at "arbitrary" expense limits allowable to $7000 / day without direct spending approval through an organ of oversight - or accountability for spending such as a treasurer that approves spending on a non petty cash basis - example expenses over $50 a day. For example all spending on travel should be approved to insure "economical means" The fact is the perks are excessive considering their salary. That is 2.5 million in perks allowable or 275 million in perks for the senate. It is excessive.

Look at the big picture not individual witch hunts. Also a senator is senator every day of the year - not just on the days attended. So giving a figure like 50k per day or 10k per day attended is ambiguous since senators rarely sit - so to does parliament as of late rarely sit. This doesn't make an MP no longer an MP due to them not being in a parliament session.

If MP's and Senators expenses were approved rather than being arbitrary you wouldn't have these problems. But it is all AFTER THE FACT instead of allowance based.

250 million for PERKS is not what you do when you are running a deficit. It isn't that high, more like 1 or 2 million but it is legally possible to bring that up to the 250 million figure.

It is absurd.

I have to say that if the Aide to the senator (where the allegation comes from) was doing business activities of the senator in an official senate capacity - then it would be an allowable business expense - if it were his vehicle. I although do not understand WHY the aide needed to go to Montreal, it should be allowable.

Unless you can determine why mileage shouldn't be applicable for official business of the senate? The amount paid is not in question but the question should be is it applicable.

Why is it applicable if the senator is being driven in his vehicle or a message official employee of the senator is being driven? If the senator were a "business" the mileage on a company vehicle ought to be deemed acceptable as a businesss expense, even if one of your employees drives it.

The remuneration was based on a mileage rate not a flat fee. So the $50 payment is completely discretionary - also it should be looked if the mileage was claimed in another capacity such as by the Aide for tax purposes.

This same thing happened for the Conservative MP for surrey

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2010/05/25/ParliamentaryExpenses/

His spending was $200,000 above the average MP's expenses because, in part, he also had the taxpayer pay for his family's travel costs also.

One has to look to the actual rules created by the senate for senate expenses - or as oversighted - that is all that is important. A senators office is more like a office within a company.

1. Some type of activity was going on in Montreal?

YES

2. Was this official business for the senate?

YES/NO

If yes,

3. Should it be an allowable expense

What are the rules defining allowable expenses?

The fact of whether people like the expense or how much the expense is a political issue, not a legal one. The rules are all that matters. Unless the judge goes to the political realm of law - and that right there is probably just asking for an appeal.

The tree cutting incident:

I'm not sure exactly how one would define - assisting a senator and doing personal work for the senator. What activities are official assistance? Is there a employment roles contract that is over sighted prior to allowing the hiring of staff - for example - what does a senator need help with? What are they unable to do themselves?

Why are they even allowed aides?

Since a senators job is 24 hours a day 7 days of week, I don't understand why such a stringent application of "personal/private" affairs exists on this. It should be defined clearly what is allowable not a public/private division in the instance of someone who is a public person.

Perhaps someone can show the actual rules and laws rather than non legal "common sense" - these issues arn't common sense.

1. Why do you need trees cut down?

Is there a valid reason that willimprove his capacity to do his job as a senator in cutting the trees down.

If Yes what is the issue?

If no, ... well

Once might wonder how cutting a neighbors tree s down does. Is this a -- mistake on the part of the aide - or intentional...?

What exactly is a senators job?

Senators also must live and own property in the Canadian province or territory which they represent.

Would this then qualify them a residence as part of their job description - and so all upkeep of their home would be an allowable expense?

But it is also law not to use public money - so they shouldn't be given funds anyway. Nor should they be given funds for paid staff. But that is a breach of law on the part of parliament for approving funding contrary to the constitution. The funding rules are unconstitutional.

What if one of the neighbors trees fell and hit him, he might not be living there anymore. Perhaps this is going too far.

there are many issues.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/inte-e/03rpg-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=9

You see the travel issue is in part because

senators alternates is used in the rules.

It appears a false witch hunt.

1. (1) In all cases not provided for in these rules, the customs, usages, forms and proceedings of either House of the Parliament of Canada shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed in the Senate or in any committee thereof.

The Rules of the Senate shall in all cases be interpreted as having priority over any practice, custom or usage described in any of the appendices to the rules. Any conflict between the appendices and the rules shall be resolved by reference to the rules alone.

.....

2. Except so far as is expressly provided, these rules shall in no way restrict the mode in which the Senate may exercise and uphold its powers, privileges and immunities.

. Notwithstanding anything in these rules, any rule or part thereof may be suspended without notice by leave of the Senate, the rule or part thereof proposed to be suspended, and the reason for the proposed suspension, being distinctly stated.