IQALUIT
Nunavut Senator Dennis Patterson is one of 30 sitting and retired senators whose expenses have been deemed not for Senate business by Auditor-General Michael Ferguson, but Patterson believes his actions were appropriate.

Nunavut Senator Dennis Patterson is one of 21 senators whose expenses are being referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to determine whether they were appropriate. - photo courtesy of Dennis Patterson

The Auditor General recommended other authorities - such as the RCMP - investigate the expenses of nine senators, while recommending the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration review the files of the other 21. Patterson is in the latter group.

Patterson is disputing the last of four audit items, which involves $13,762 in legal fees to clarify a constitutional matter. Senate rules require that each senator must own a specific type of property in the region he or she represents. Patterson owns property in Iqaluit. However as of 2015, no individual may own land in any municipality in Nunavut, which poses the question: can anyone be a senator for Nunavut based on the Constitution.

"The particular situation of a Nunavut senator has to do with the property owning requirements in the Constitution Act of 1867," Patterson told Nunavut News/North. "The provision in the Constitution Act requires a senator to own property worth $4,000 and there's quite a lot of terminology in the Constitution Act around what that property has to be. There's quite a few arcane legal terms in the description of the property, (such as) 'A legal or equitable interest in free or common soakage.' Medieval terminology. Then there's the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, which sets up a landholding regime in communities in Nunavut that is based on leasehold title. What is acceptable (to the Senate) in Nunavut?"

Patterson stands by his need to spend the money to do research about the legality of his senatorship. But the auditor focused strictly on the validity of the expense, and noted that Patterson's lawyer told the auditor that it had provided services only in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, and that Patterson had asked the firm to split the invoice in two, giving Patterson the chance to file part of the expense in the 2012-13 fiscal year because his 2011-2012 research and office budget was maxed out.

"We found that the same invoice number appeared on the invoices that were provided in both fiscal years," the audit report states. "The first version of the invoice stated 'for professional services rendered to March 30, 2012'; the second version stated 'for professional services,' without any reference to when the services were performed."

"I was told there would be a way of having the additional expenses paid out of the following fiscal year," Patterson said, adding that it "would be paid for by the Senate."

The audit found Patterson should have either paid the outstanding $13,762 himself or requested assistance from the Internal Economy Committee.

Patterson said there is a fund that may have paid the bill due to the fact it "'relates to the parliamentary functions of the senator and the particulars of the case are such that it is otherwise appropriate for the Senate to assist."

"So I'm proposing to refer this matter to the independent arbitrator that's been set up to deal with these issues, and will be making a case that this bill could have and maybe should have been paid under the Legal Assistance and Indemnification Policy, and forgive me for repaying this personally," he said.

He was never told of this fund before the audit, he added.

"From the first time I sought advice from the Law Clerk of the Senate on this Constitutional matter and from the first time I realized that the legal work would be much more than anticipated, I informed and relied on the Senate Administration for their advice on how to proceed," he noted in his audit response.

The auditor noted three other items of concern.

In October 2011, Patterson travelled from Ottawa to Vancouver for a charity fundraiser, and claimed $5,205 in travel expenses. Patterson said he was not aware until the audit that claiming expenses for charity fundraisers was not allowed, and has repaid the money.

In May 2011, Patterson submitted a claim for a trip to Pangnirtung. During the audit, Patterson told auditors that the expense did not qualify as a trip for parliamentary business, and the amount was repaid.

For the period of the audit, which spanned April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2013, Patterson hired his full-time policy advisor, through the employee's side business, to do media monitoring, which involves scanning media for items that would concern his office. The work was done outside of work hours, but the auditor said it was inappropriate.

"In our view, the services were part of the employee's regular duties," the audit report reads, noting Patterson has paid $3,023 for this service.

"It was never explained to me that an individual could not be both a contractor and an employee," Patterson said in a letter of response.

"This was done in good faith and was corrected as soon as it was pointed out to me."

As of May 7, the travel expenses had been repaid, but not the media monitoring expense.

Patterson told Nunavut News/North he has paid all but the $13,762 legal expense as of June 9.