Let us remind you when the latest edition of X-Ray is online.

Your email address will NEVER be shared or sold.

No thanks.

Your email address will NEVER be shared or sold

Senator's Scandalous Spending!

In the rest of the world, they call this corruption

by Geoffrey Stevens

There are times, Dear Reader, when an innocent citizen may wonder whether the people we send to Ottawa pay any attention to the money they spend. Take the strange saga of Senator Raymond Lavigne. A former Liberal MP from Quebec, Senator Lavigne has been in a spot of trouble over his use of public funds. Although he has not been permitted to do any Senate work for three-plus years, Sen. Lavigne still draws his full $132,300 annual salary.


The story goes back to 2005, when the couple who owned the property next to Lavigne's cottage in the Gatineau Hills north of Ottawa discovered a man chopping down some of their trees. It turned out the man was Daniel Côté, a former nightclub bouncer, who was on the Senate payroll as a $55,000-a-year aide in Lavigne's office, where he sorted the mail---when not performing such personal chores as clearing trees or accompanying the senator and his wife on a Caribbean vacation.


The next-door people complained. The RCMP investigated Lavigne and eventually, in 2007, he was charged with fraud, breach of trust and obstruction of justice. The case finally came to trial in 2009. The court was told about an imaginative little expense scam. Senators are entitled to claim mileage at a rate of 43.5 cents per kilometre. Lavigne would send aides off on errands to Montreal and back. At roughly 400 kilometres, each round trip would yield about $174.


Most of the time, Lavigne claimed the mileage for himself, the court heard, although on occasion, he would give an aide $50 for his/her trouble. (The judge was ready to rule on the charges last November, but Lavigne's lawyer did not appear in court. The verdict is now scheduled for February 22.)


Meanwhile, back in 2006, Lavigne was expelled from the Liberal caucus. The announcement of his expulsion was made by the interim leader, Bill Graham---which gives us a sense of how long ago it was in political time: after Paul Martin and before Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.


In 2007, Lavigne was "suspended" from the Senate, which by then had run up $80,000 in legal expenses investigating his spending. An innocent citizen might think that suspension is a pretty tough sanction. Since 2007, Lavigne has not been permitted to attend the Senate or its committees or vote or travel on Senate business. He is restricted to appearing in the Senate one time per session---meaning once, maybe twice, in a normal year.


Why, if he is suspended, is he allowed to show up at all? The reason is simple. Under the arcane rules of Parliament Hill, senators may claim their full salary if they make an appearance just once in a session.


Yes, although he has not been permitted to do any Senate work for three-plus years, Sen. Lavigne still draws his full $132,300 annual salary. He still has an office. He still sends out his Christmas cards. He still lists himself as a Liberal, and he still maintains a parliamentary website that includes a picture of the man who made him a senator, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. And he still files expense accounts.


Some of those expense numbers came out last week. Between Sept. 1 and Nov. 30, 2010---a three-month period only---Lavigne ran up $17,708.46 in office expenses, $64.43 in hospitality, $4,528.60 for accommodation in the capital, $5,882.92 in travel between Ottawa and his home in Quebec, plus $2,605.05 for other travel.


An innocent citizen might ask why a disgraced and suspended senator needs an office on Parliament Hill, why taxpayers should pay for it, why he needs housing in Ottawa, what travel he is doing on the public's dime---and why it took three years for someone to notice.


These are questions that should not be asked. They would only lead to bigger questions. Why, for example, is the Harper government determined to spend an estimated $21 billion on F-35 fighter aircraft that the country does not need and cannot afford, at a time when the Americans are reducing their commitment to that program? (X)


Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. He welcomes comments at
geoffstevens@sympatico.ca.


Like what you're reading?
Share this article, subscribe to X-Ray, or donate, please!