Office of the

Prime Minister

Cabinet du
Premier mlnlstre

SECRET

Memorandum
To:

Prime Minister

From: Nigel Wright, Joanne McNamara, Chris Woodcock, Patrick Rogers

Date:
Re:

March ~22 , 2013

Letter from Senator LeBreton

This memo does not correspond to a PCO note.

Attached to this memo is a suggested response to the letter that you received
from Senator LeBreton.
The GtlffeA-tt-y-#le-Senate'..s Board of Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration.. chaired by Senator Tkachuk .. has formed two &?lit itself into
EH#erent-subcommittees that are involved in the travel and living expense issues.
Senator Tkachuk chairs the steering subcommittee, while Senator Marshall
chairs the subcommittee struck in November 2012 to review allegations with
respect to living allowances. The committee and its subcommittees operate with
overlapping mandates, without strategic objectives and for the most part without
noticeable direction or f>FepeF-overview from Senator LeBreton's office. The lack
of a strategic objective. the lack of a defined plan, the failure to assess the
foreseeable consequences of actions taken, the failure to settle on a Government
approach ahead of meetings with Senate officials and Opposi tion Senators, and
the overall lack of coordination between the committee and subcommittees have
This sil-HatieR-Aas--generated serious issues in recent months and have greatly
impeded our efforts to manage the issues . For example, the only reason Senator
Patterson became the subject of negative national news was that after:-the
Committee decided to define 'residency' by reference to fetUtFed--aU-SenatoF&---te
JNeGuGe-four pieces of provi ncially~issued identification and to do so publicly
without any prior consultation with your office and no prior assessment of
whether any Conservative Senators would fail the test. In this action, the
Committee also blurred the distinction between residency for the purpose of
constitutional eligibility to represent a province or territory in the Senate and
residency for the purpose of identifying whether one is on travel status while in
the national capital. While Senator Wallin has her own issues with expenses,
this action opened up a new problem for her, given that she has an Ontario
health card and the province of Ontario is now enquiring whether that is a breach
of its rules given that she is a resident of Saskatchewan.tAat-fl.e-Geuki-Aot
f)FeGt!Be-,-SeRatefS-fi:em our own CauGtJS--BFeat-eG--a-test-fer-resiaensy-wRi6A--tAey
GiG-flot--k-Aew-ef--a{3f)areR#y--Bafe-if their Caucus colleagues would pass.

Canada

Page2

As the Senate expense i~he--issues broke and intensified. ifl--t.Ae

Senate has insreaseG-your office has increased its interaction with Senators as
we try to manage the issues. What we have discovered is that the lines of
communication and levers that are available to us on the House side, simply are
not in place on the Senate side. It was quickly apparent that Senator LeBreton's
office had little influence over what other Senators did and said, and limited reach
into the Senate caucus generally. Accordingly, we engaged directly with Chairs
and certain Conservative members of the relevant committee and
subcommittees, while trying to keep the Senate Leader's office informed
concurrentlyrnl4fl~ndeG-e1::1F-line&-ef-GoFRFRl:IRieatten-te

fficlude not only Senator LeBreton anG--Aef-effiee,-9ut-aIBo-tRe ChaiF--and

memeers of the Internal EconoFRy CoFRFRittee. These relationships with other
Senators have enabled us to avert some additional problems.
-What we see l=lave-GisooveraG-is a laissez-faire system a1313reaeR--that requires
constant direction, supervisioni and follow:up from your office to ensure that
Government messaging and direction are is-followed. This problem is not
limited to expense and residency issuesj !there are Senate committee reports
that call on the government to lower airport rentstaxesi and-create a national
pharma care-_plan. invest heavily in Aboriginal education. and review our tariffs as
a way of dealing with the gap in retail prices between Canada and the U.S. We
speak with .:f-tlere--are--alse--Senators who do not receive lask-talking points or
communications advice and who are seldom, if ever, guided on messaging. lD.
managing the Senate's response to Ann Cools' privilege motion relating to the
Parliamentary Budget Officer, we found that individual Conservative Senators
had, or were preparing to, speak to the issue without any advance coordination
and without thought to the impact on the Government's litigation with the PBO.
The Senate Leader's office did work with us to establish the formal Government
response to the issue, but did not consider any measures to manage other
interventions by Conservative Senators until directed by us to do so. These
issues are exacerbated fl:IAAef...by Senator LeBreton's repeated approach of
reaching agreements with Liberal leadership before coming to your office or her
Senate colleagues for consultation. Consistently, Senator LeBreton does not
embrace resists the work of your office to bring communication and direction with
the Senate closer to the model relatien-sh+JIB-that we have with the House Leader
and Chief Government Whip.
The genesis of the attached letter from Minister Le Breton is a direction from your
office that she write to you before taking any further actions to establish rules,
procedures, and audits res-0-W-e-i-sstle&-relating to expenses and accountability in
the Senate. Your office learned from Senator Tkachuk that Senator LeBreton and
member of the Internal Economy Committee had met with the Liberal leadership
to discuss the creation of a new special committee on top of the committee

Canada

Page 3

structure that already exists. It was, as Senator LeBreton writes in her letter to
you, to bring a "fresh set of eyes" to the matter. There was no coordination to
ensure its mandate would not overlap with the other subcommittees that we have
been working with, and we understood that its mandate would include 'settling'
the residency issue. Your office was told that the purpose of the committee
would be, "to fix what was broken." When details were not forthcoming we
explained that the Senator must write to you before anything further is done.
This was our attempt to force the preparation of written objectives and plans and
to formalize an approval process that would give the Government a chance to be
heard before Senate officials and the Opposition directed outcomes. As an
aside, we have the impression that the Senate Clerk and legal officers effectively
run the steering committee unless we are quite involved.
We M:lftAer to this, we believe that oothing further can happefl-iA-the-SeAate
regaming travel rules,-eF-fiAancial-feertifl9--urutl-#le--the Deloitte audit &~temal
alldits--Sy-Qeleitte-on Senators Duffy and Wallin , and Internal Economy's
dispositions that ensue, should be --aFe-completed afl~before the
Senate broadly attempts to fix its rules and financial reporting .1 Doing it in the
reverse order risks openinq up new problems or failing to address problems
identified by Deloitte (which might well make recommendations). Doing it
through a third committee that has had no history with the Deloitte work to date is
begging for an uncoordinated response.
WeNankl-y,we have worked to resolve set-tie-the Senator Duffy issue through
with-his repayment but the resolution has been delayed and complicated by
mixed messages sent to Sen. Tkachuk . We hope to have a final disposition of
that matter soonaR1-llad-R0peG-tA.at-a-rnpayment by SeRater-Qlfffy-weulEl-Bring
a~nG-te-t-Ae--Qeloote-w9H.-l=lawe-ver=,at-thi&-t+me,--we-flav&beeA-Unaele-te
reseiv~sA--an assurance from Oeloitte--a-AG-s~ly must poiflt...eut that tf:le-terms
ef-fefefence-te-Qeleitte that have--e+lSRareEi-011e of our own CauGYS-fflemeer-s
were appmved by a committee tf:lat consffits-of a majority of CoAServaUve
sen-at0rs.

In terms of Senator Wallin, based on our review of the rules and her flights, we
believe that an independent auditor potentially could come back to the
subcommittee suggesting that over $30,000 in flights to Toronto alone between
April 2011 and the end of 2012 could be deemed illegitimate expenses. There
are then tens of thousands of dollars more in flights that may not meet other
rules. You have asked us to consider responses to different scenarios involving
Senator Wallin. which work is underway.

' We would not hold up this work to wait for the outcomes of the issues relating to Senators Harb and
Brazeau.

Canad...a

Page4

ffi-aetA-ef-ttwso oases, Sooatef--b.o.Breton's rosistanoo to provfGffi9-J'OUr offioe

wHR-aoourate and time!y information has made the--faUout worse.
It is in th is context beoause of these experienoes that when talk of another
special committee was raised we asked that you be informed of it, in writing, and
before Liberal leadership was consulted further, to ensure that the Senator's
objectives are clear, that she has a plan to meet them and that your office is
consulted in the design and implementation of the plan. The letter we
requested, therefore, was for a wholly different purpose than the letter you
received .
Attached to this memo is a PMO drafted response. We believe that Senator
LeBreton should work in close coordination with , and in support of, your office in
managing must take real respGRSiaility for the aotions of the Committee on
Internal Economy and its sub-committees rather than continuing to afl4-fl~enJ0f
suggest to you and or-your office that she has no influence on them. We also
believe that she should write to you again, in detail, with a plan for working with
your office with regards to any future changes to the expense rules and
procedures Gf--finaooial-seMoes--in the Senate.

Canada

Dear Colleague:SeAatef-heBfeteA,

I would like to thCVlk you for your letter of March 21st. We share a determination lo
ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent oopropriately~Hs&les+n the Senateflave
6f01&nati0Ral-t1W&i!A~l:lesttens-iR-tRe-l=le1:1Se-0t-GemmOAS. I would ask that
yoo~ l-H-s-my-e)$06tatieA-Y0'*'w+H-work closely with my office to ensure that the
Government's messaging aid direction are implemented to that end.
It wi11 be i mportanl to Based--OA-r-eeeAt-ex-am13k3s-e1Jl1tAOO-i-n-yeur-tettf-;--t--&lggest-tfiat-you
work even more with Giesel-y-in-ooeroinatiAg-Conservative Senators on the relevant key
committees aid subcommi ltees, such as itk&the Standing Committee on I ntemal
Economy, Budgets <1d Administrations end all-of-the v<"ious sub-committees that it
might create, with a vieN to improving the coordination between them and to orienting
them on a common path towards the objective we share. I would ask that you work
cl osel ~AGH ens-at-these-oommi-Uees1 0E{3ooi al I y oott0As-that-rnay-A9!1ttv1.y-at.f-6t..e1:1F
ewn-Ga.tGHs-ooUOOl:les-m1:1st-00-takeA-withi.Jf0aka"-e-a:-lei-tfl~romali-oo-with my office
in that regard.
Before constituting the Peci<i SteeFin~Gommittee referred to in your letter, or holding
further conversations with the Opposition about its composition, mandate, and work P!fil.
begins its-weAHtesm~eEHA-YOOHel-teF;-1 would like you to write to me outlining the
strategic oblectlve, wi-#1-the work plai to achieve it, cvid the implications it would have
on members of our own Senate caucus end on the sound mcviagement of the Senatet'f'ld
sl-fa!Oi Gi)Gal-6.
b-astl-yFinally, as you know, Minister Uppal will ooon be introducing legislation to bring
ooUt-the House of Commons and the Senate under a single eHe-Ethics Commissioner.
Caucus members have suggested that the difference between the two Codes could cause
confusion in the Commissioner's rulings. I would ask that you work with the House
Leader aid Chief Government Whip to examine both Codes to assess whether they
should be harmonized cvid, if so, to make proposals for theunifl~ code in those areas in
which the present two codes diverg_~Uh lhe goa of idootifying lhe strongest &'.lGtiOR&ef:
eooh Md tvllooding lhem as needed'..

Comment (11): NS'N - I thirk this

Yours sincerely,

It wlll l owit<bly need to besha'edwtth a

broa:la' g-oup tt'M wewmt to have sgit of

pa-~~ shouldbeina sq:aae ldt,

the full IE(t.

as