memo to pm from nigel wright

5
Office of the Prime Minister Memorandum To: Prime Minister Cabinet du Premier mlnlstre From: Nigel Wright, Joanne McNamara, Chris Woodcock, Patrick Rogers Date: March 2013 Re: Letter from Senator LeBreton This memo does not correspond to a PCO note. SECRET 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 Opposition 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 fe€tUtFed--aU- SenatoF&---te JNeGuGe-four pieces of 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

Upload: macleans-magazine

Post on 12-Jan-2016

927 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Evidence from the Mike Duffy trial.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Memo to PM From Nigel Wright

Office of the Prime Minister

Memorandum To: Prime Minister

Cabinet du Premier mlnlstre

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

Date: March ~22, 2013

Re: Letter from Senator LeBreton

This memo does not correspond to a PCO note.

SECRET

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 fe€tUtFed--aU-SenatoF&---te JNeGuGe-four pieces of provincially~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

Page 2: Memo to PM From Nigel Wright

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 G§overnment 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 pharmacare-_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: Memo to PM From Nigel Wright

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-feµertifl9--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 soonaR€1-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.

C d ... ana a

Page 4: Memo to PM From Nigel Wright

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~en€J0f 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

Page 5: Memo to PM From Nigel Wright

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 6f€01€&nati0Ral-t1€W&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 wi 11 be i mportanl to Based--OA-r-eeeAt-ex-am13k3s-e1Jl1tAOO-i-n-yeur-tett€f-;--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!¥1ttv€1.y-at.f-€6t..e1:1F ewn-Ga.tGHs-ooUOO§l: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!O§i 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'..

Yours sincerely,

Comment (11): NS'N - I thirk this pa-~~shouldbeinasq:aaeldt«, as It wlll lowit<bly need to besha'edwtth a broa:la' g-oup tt'M wewmt to have sgit of the full IE(t«.