Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 10 - Evidence - March 2, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 2, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:32 a.m., in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues.
I would like to start with the first item on the agenda, which is the adoption of minutes of the proceedings of the February 16, 2017, the public portion of the meeting. Does anyone have any questions regarding that?
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: It's moved by Senator Jaffer. Everyone concurs, I hope. No questions. Thank you.
Item 2 on the agenda. We have the pleasure to have with us a former colleague who was here when I was first named to the Senate in 2009. Senator Carstairs has had a distinguished career both here in the Senate and everywhere else she has crossed paths with people. She's made a request to come before us in regard to legal fees, and the committee will have the pleasure of listening to a short presentation from Senator Carstairs. Then we'll open it up to a question period.
Senator Carstairs, you have the floor.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs, P.C., former senator, as an individual: Thank you, Senator Housakos and honourable senators.
I served in this place for 17 years. In this place and at various times, I served as the Leader of the Government in the Senate; the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the chair of the Special Committee on End of Life Care, chair of the Special Committee on Aging and was the co-chair of the Library Committee. I was a member of the Special Committee on Of Life and Death; this committee; the Rules Committee; the Conflict of Interest Committee; the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee; Aboriginal Peoples Committee; the Human Rights Committee; and the Selection Committee.
I was the author of two updates on the end-of-life coalition committee. In addition, I gave seminars to incoming senators for nine years and to the pages for at least that long. I edited three journals for the pages entitled Pages of Reflection, for seven years sat as a member and for several years was the chair on the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the IPU, a position to which I was elected by 150 countries.
All in all, I've had a very busy Senate career.
In my 17 years of service, not a single claim of mine was ever challenged by Senate Finance. Indeed, the only communication my office received was that there were items I could have claimed and chose not to. I was proud of this place and the work I did, and was honoured to serve.
Yet 18 months after I retired, the Senate engaged in a process that was not only unjust but also very expensive. It made the 17 years of my work feel diminished and of significantly less value. The audit process agreed to by the Senate was unfair for the retired senators from the beginning, particularly those of us who had retired many months before the AG was invited to conduct the audit. We were never invited to the Auditor General's briefing and had to inform ourselves with a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. We were forced to attend the AG's office, or for those outside of Ottawa, to conduct investigations by telephone and/or by correspondence.
While sitting senators were interviewed in their offices with staff, if desired, we were on what felt like enemy turf. We did all of the research by ourselves, as we did not have staff. We also did not have access to our computers and/or our BlackBerrys where most of the information had been stored, because these had been turned back to the Senate upon retirement and presumably cleaned of our material.
In addition, when I retired, I asked Senate Finance if I should keep my finance files. I was informed that because there were never any problems, I should feel free to shred them, which I did. Fortunately for me, my executive assistant kept my travel schedules on a CD and was able to retrieve these schedules, and my contract employee kept copies of all of my speeches on her personal computer.
I gave 31 speeches from coast to coast to coast in my last year in the Senate, primarily on palliative care and the aging of our society, both based on reports unanimously approved by the Senate, which explains why I was often neither in Winnipeg nor Ottawa.
In addition, I was also out of the country for 28 days each year, representing Canada at the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the IPU, defending parliamentarians who had been murdered, forcibly disappeared or otherwise denied their rights by their parliaments.
I had several in person conversations with the two auditors assigned to my case. In one, on the question of residency, I asked why if the Canada Revenue Agency considered me a Manitoban because I paid taxes in Manitoba; that Canada and Manitoba Elections both considered me a Manitoban because I voted there; Manitoba Health considered me a Manitoban because I had a Manitoban health care card; Manitoba Motor Vehicles considered me to be a Manitoban because my driver's licence was from Manitoba, and both of my vehicles, the one I drove in Manitoba and the one I drove in Ottawa, were both registered, plated and insured in Manitoba, why did they not consider me a Manitoban?
They said "because of the Deloitte audit conducted 18 months after I retired on Senators Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy,'' and it implied residency was determined by the number of days spent in the province we represented. When I argued that there were no rules in the Senate with respect to time spent in the province, the auditors argued that because the Senate had accepted the Deloitte audit, they had also accepted this principle. However, as we all know, there have never been and still are no rules in the Senate on number of days spent in the province the senator represents.
The Senate knew from the moment the Auditor General's report was tabled that no such rules on residency existed and, in my view, had an obligation to the two retired senators, Senator Bill Rompkey and me, whose only issue was residency, to clarify this. You chose not to do so. It is true that in March 2013, you tightened rules on residency for the purpose of accepting a housing allowance for a secondary residence. But, senators, I had fulfilled all of these new requirements from 1994 to 2011, the dates of my service in this place.
The second conversation with the two auditors occurred following the testimony of Mark Audcent, the former Law Clerk, at the trial of Senator Duffy. Mr. Audcent had given testimony that there were no rules on time spent in the province the senator represented, and also his testimony on primary and secondary residency.
The auditors said they were aware of his testimony but didn't agree with him. I was dumbfounded because it was Mr. Audcent to whom I went if ever I needed clarification of the rules. I assumed that he was the go-to person for other senators as well, since he had drafted most of the rules.
I also failed to make them understand that the Senate Administrative Rules, affectionately called SARs, and the travel guidelines were the two things a senator would look to with respect to trips. The rules and guidelines were clear, and are still clear. All senators were entitled to four travel points following retirement, no matter where they lived, for the purpose of closing their office and/or for parliamentary business, which as we all know does not just take place in Ottawa.
The rules did not exempt from this right those senators who had only one residence. I claimed only one of the four points. My trip involved a television interview, a speech at a school, a closing interview with my contract person in Manitoba, and a meeting with the executive director of the Canadian Virtual Hospice, a program I had helped to establish when I was Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister with Special Responsibility for Palliative Care.
The virtual hospice reaches 1.5 million people each year, giving helpful advice to patients and families in both of our official languages. I was able to share emails with the Auditor General with information about these events. Yet I still felt it unnecessary to hire legal counsel because I was convinced I had always followed the letter and the spirit of the Senate rules.
It was only when I received a letter from the Speaker, who was also the chair of Internal Economy, hand delivered to me on June 5, 2015, stating that my file had been referred to the RCMP that I realized I needed to hire legal counsel. This letter predates the tabling of the AG's report in the Senate, which did not occur until June 9, 2015. I was devastated.
The nine senators whose files were sent to the RCMP were vilified by the media. Even though the RCMP later stated that it was not up to the Auditor General or the Senate to determine criminal behaviour, and therefore all 30 senators identified by the Auditor General would be investigated, the stories concentrated on the nine referred to the RCMP by the Speaker. The Winnipeg Free Press, for example, concentrated their story on Senator Rod Zimmer and me, although in my case the figure used was the money I had spent on travel and not the amount the Auditor General said he thought I owed, which was $7,528, all of which he attributed to, and I quote, "an incorrect declaration of primary residence.''
If you google me today, Wikipedia still states that I am under an RCMP investigation. I was until very recently on the Senate website as owing money which, quite frankly, I do not and never have.
In mid-May, prior to the tabling of the audit, I learned in a call from the Governor General's office that I had been named a member of the Order of Canada, and it would be announced on July 1, 2015. Following the tabling of the audit, while I was assured by the Governor General's office that all the documentation had been signed, they said they would delay the announcement of the honour. Once again I was presumed to be guilty before I had the chance to prove my innocence. It was finally announced on July 1, 2016, one year later.
The Senate leadership announced an arbitration process. I attempted, along with my legal counsel, to attend the two-day session with former Justice Ian Binnie in order to learn the process. I was refused because I had not signed the agreement. It was my counsel's position that without knowing the process to be followed it was unfair to me to go through this private process while I was the subject of an RCMP investigation. The Binnie process of interviewing senators was completed before I learned on February 11, 2016, in a phone call from Michel Patrice, that the RCMP had opened and then closed their investigation on my file and no charges would be laid. This was two months prior to the verdict in the Senator Michael Duffy case.
It was essential for me to retain counsel as I was under threat of a civil suit from the Senate, a threat announced in the arbitration process in June 2015. I was only informed in the fall of 2016 that I could avail myself again of the arbitration process, which I believed had been closed in September 2015. However, by this time the verdict had been rendered on Senator Duffy and a closed arbitration process based on my proving my innocence as opposed to having the Senate being required to prove my guilt did not seem a fair process, because in the view of my counsel and me Canadians are ensured the concept of presumption of innocence.
My legal bills have amounted to $82,023.10, eleven times the $7,528 the Auditor General stated he thought I owed. These fees were highly discounted by my lawyers in recognition of the injustice of my case.
In May 2016, I requested help with legal fees, following the April 21, 2016, decision on Senator Duffy. At the time of this request, my counsel also sent letters showing clearly how I had broken no rules of the Senate. I was informed that the steering committee had rejected my request because I had not sought payment prior to engaging legal services.
I continued to have significant expenditures following this initial request for payment of legal fees because this institution from the outset was threatening to sue me. You and your counsel received numerous communications from my counsel with respect to your threatened lawsuit. The rule 2.5.2(1) that you make reference to in the rejection of my request by the steering committee states "a payment shall not ordinarily be made prior to an application.'' This was hardly an ordinary situation. This was not the Senate and/or a senator being sued. This was the Senate threatening to sue a former senator, and the threats continued despite clear arguments put forward by my counsel.
In my view, this has always been a matter between me and the Senate. Quite frankly, if I had not been referred to the RCMP, I might well have done what so many other senators did, which was to pay the amount to make the whole thing go away, and like many of them said, not because I thought I owed the taxpayers of this country any money. However, the referral to the RCMP questioned both my honesty and integrity, which had never before been questioned in 27 and a half years of public service, nor at any point in my life.
I hired counsel because the Speaker sent my file to the RCMP without any due process afforded to me. The money I supposedly owed was less than 0.75 of 1 per cent of the money the AG said was owed, yet I remind you that my legal fees are 11 times the amount I supposedly owed.
There is no fairness in this. I continued to incur legal bills by threats for payment by the very institution I had served.
I believe that simple justice requires this committee to accept responsibility for these fees. I am convinced that had I ever been given the opportunity to be heard by this committee or the full Senate, I would never have required legal counsel and would never have acquired these costs because I would have been able to prove I had never broken the letter or indeed the spirit of the rules of this place.
Senators, I served in this place to the very best of my ability. As a result of actions taken by this institution, my reputation for honesty and integrity have been questioned and tarnished. In addition, it has been a costly process. I believe simple justice would result in the acceptance of some of this responsibility by this institution. I believe the payment of my legal bills would be just.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carstairs.
Before we go to the list of senators who want to ask questions, I also want to point out to our colleagues that we certainly have no desire or objective here to revisit the Auditor General's report. This committee decided a while back that we would not sit in judgment of that report, and we have tried as best as we can to do that, and that's also why we created the arbitration process we set up.
I also want to highlight three important points of why steering and Internal Economy, at the time, took the decisions we took. They are all based in policies that exist in the Senate, the first one, of course, being that no distribution of any legal fees that are made in advance of approval by steering or Internal Economy are legitimate in terms of policy.
The second element is that funds that are requested for the assistance of legal fees or representation by a lawyer in instances where there's a potential suit against the Senate, also based on our policies, is inappropriate.
And the third element is that we also have to keep in mind that all senators were offered an opportunity to go before the arbitrator with a predetermined system — both senators who were retired and senators who were sitting.
Before we go to questions, I also want to highlight, following the testimony of Senator Carstairs is, of course, that all of our colleagues were referred to the RCMP for review, and after thorough review by the RCMP, they categorically stated that not a single one of those cases warranted an investigation. I put that out there for the record.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much for coming here today, Ms. Carstairs.
I wasn't in the Senate at the time that you were here, but I certainly want to start out by saying that I definitely have sympathy for the predicament that you have endured here. It's unfortunate that you and so many others have endured some pretty severe repercussions because of the Auditor General's actions in this matter, which many who have come before this committee have described as overzealous and, as Justice Binnie and others found later, perhaps went too far in many cases.
I do want to raise a couple of points here. I practised law for many years before coming to the Senate, and there were many occasions where I had difficult discussions with my clients where they would tell me, "Well, I know that the amount being claimed here, or the amount that we're suing for, isn't that much, but I need to do it for the principle of it.''
There were many of those conversations, and I would then frequently tell them that, at the end of the day, you need to weigh the money involved here, because six months from now when you've spent a lot of money paying me, you are probably not going to say, "I'm glad I did that for the principle of it.'' That was a frequent conversation.
You have readily stated here, today, that amount that you were found to owe back to the Senate by the Auditor General was $7,500, and your legal fees were $82,000. Again, I would just point out that, for the principle of it, sometimes what really needs to come into play is the actual monetary balance.
There were also many senators who were found by the Auditor General to have money owing who paid that money back, and that was despite the fact, in many occasions, that they were vehemently opposing the Auditor General's findings. Whether that was at a point prior to the Auditor General's report — so, perhaps their findings didn't even make it into the report — or after the Auditor General's report, at some later date, they made the decision to pay the money back because, at that stage, they put out a release, in some cases, telling the media why they adamantly opposed the findings, but they made those kinds of decisions.
I just wanted to raise those few points for your consideration.
Ms. Carstairs: Thank you, Senator Batters.
If I could just briefly address those, the Auditor General's behaviour in this was clearly struck down vehemently by Justice Vallaincourt on the issue of residency. There's no question about that. The Auditor General was incorrect in his reading of Senate rules.
With respect to holding legal counsel for the principle of it, or in order to defend my integrity, I think I would put it in two ways.
It wasn't just a matter of protecting my integrity, although that was extremely important to me. From the time that I hired the lawyer in June — which was one day after I received the letter from the Senate - until February 11, I was subject to an RCMP review. That is a legal process. That is why I had legal counsel.
Following that date, when I knew I was no longer subject to RCMP scrutiny, I was still being threatened by this institution with a lawsuit, and you didn't decide until December 8, 2016, that you would not pursue a lawsuit against me.
From my perspective, I had no choice but to have legal counsel because I did not know what legal proceedings would take place against me.
Third, with respect to the senators who paid back money, I did make some reference to that in my comments and to my knowledge, none of those who paid back money — and I can think of some who are at this very table — were threatened with RCMP investigations.
Senator Tannas: Like Senator Batters, I was not here when you served, but I just want to express my admiration for all the work that you did for Canadians.
There are a couple of things I want to make sure that I understand about what you were saying. Obviously, you're in very good company with folks who had their reputations smeared in what happened. There are dozens of senators who served the country and have found themselves in your position, and some of them, as you say, decided that the best course of action was simply to pay their bill from the Auditor General and move on with their lives. Others didn't have that choice, obviously, and had to go to court, while others chose to do different things with respect to Justice Binnie.
The one thing that I have to say that I think was the best thing that this committee could have done was — two things — when we were presented with the Auditor General's report. First, that it was clear to many of us, and it still is, that it was an overreach and that there were conclusions that were jumped to that were just simply not correct, or that we didn't agree with. But the worst thing we could have done was sit in judgment of 30-odd people, one at a time, in a political environment with the media present and all of the other things swirling around, and try and sort it out.
The wisest thing to do was to come up with an arm's length process that would deal with the unfairness perceived by many of us with respect to what happened, and that was the Binnie process. We hired, at significant expense, a retired Supreme Court justice to deal one at a time with people and hear their cases, and I never heard of a single person who was unsatisfied with that process when they chose to go through it.
You said — and I want to make sure this is right — that you understood that that was the environment and those were the decisions that got made, I presume, because I think we did a pretty good job of trying to communicate that we weren't going to involve ourselves in this kind of a situation.
You were advised by your lawyer not to participate in round one of the Binnie arbitrations because you were still under investigation by the RCMP.
In round two, you chose not to because you could not get an explanation of what the process would be, unless you signed an agreement that said that if you went through the process you would agree with the outcome.
Was that the tripping point? What was the tripping point in round two?
Ms. Carstairs: No, there was no round two, Senator Tannas.
Let's be very clear. The Senate put together an arbitration process. I would suggest to you that that arbitration process may have been fair and reasonable to those who had not been publicly referred to the RCMP. It was not true and fair to those of us who had been publicly referred to the RCMP, because we had to put things on a priority, and quite frankly the RCMP had to go to the top of our priority list.
But even given that, I was prepared to have my counsel — this is round one if you will — go to the preliminary meetings with Justice Ian Binnie in September 2015 to find out just what that process was going to be, to ask questions about how that would impact on any future RCMP investigation.
I was refused the opportunity to go to that, as was my counsel, because we didn't sign the arbitration agreement. But his advice to me was that we cannot sign the arbitration agreement until we know what the arbitration process is. As to the round two that you make reference to, that was something I picked up in the media, that somehow or other senators were allowed to go before Justice Binnie in the fall of 2016.
As far as I was concerned, my not going in 2015 was the end of the process. Then I did receive a letter, I believe from the Law Clerk, although I could be wrong, which said I still had the opportunity in September 2016 to go to Justice Binnie. But that was after the verdict was already given on Mike Duffy.
Senator Tannas: That's what I wanted to make clear. You did understand there were two chances, and with the first chance, the RCMP was in play. With the second chance, your advice and your decision was that, because Senator Duffy was found not guilty in a criminal court, you didn't owe the money and therefore it should all go away.
Ms. Carstairs: Not quite that simple.
The decision that Justice Vaillancourt made in late April 2016 eviscerated any argument put forward by the Crown with respect to residence, and the only issue on which I had had any difficulties with the Auditor General was an incorrect declaration of primary residence. There was nothing else.
So that is why, at the time that I wrote to this committee through the steering committee and asked for help with legal fees, my lawyer also sent letters showing clearly that with the Justice Vaillancourt decision and my case, there was no case because he had said there has been no violation of residency. Well, quite frankly, honourable senators, if there was no violation of residency in the case of Senator Michael Duffy, there was certainly no violation of residency with respect to me. I had met not only the requirements in 2011, when I left this place, but the requirements that you established in 2013.
Senator Tannas: I have one more question, just for clarification. I don't want to get into it, but given what you've told us about your interactions with respect to the Binnie process, which is the only process that we have provided legal reimbursements for — this is my understanding and I could be wrong, please correct me — your legal fees, given everything that we've talked about here, must be 90 per cent, 95 per cent to do with dealing with the RCMP. Would that be fair?
Ms. Carstairs: No, it would not be fair. I can provide you all with copies of all of my legal bills. Considerable legal bills were acquired from that period, on June 6, 2015, when I first hired counsel, up to getting ready for the Binnie process because we did not reject the Binnie process out of hand.
Senator Tannas: Okay, thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks, Senator Carstairs, it's great to see you back. I have known you for many years and have admired you greatly. In fact, I was inspired many times, as were all your colleagues, by what you have contributed here and what you did.
I think clearly your specific process got off the rails with what I would argue is very poor judgment on the part of the Auditor General's consideration.
I want to put the numbers in perspective. If you consider that we meet between 25 and 30 weeks a year, and if you come Sunday and leave Thursday or Friday, there are 150 days a year you are Ottawa because it's sitting. And then you add 60-some days, two days for each of the speeches you gave across the country. So that's 62 days, and then the 28 days at IPU. And that was a huge recognition of Senator Carstairs' contributions not only to Canada but to the world. That's the biggest interparliamentary association in the world and she was selected to be the chair of the group that went around the world to get political prisoners out of jail. You said 28 days you did that. Now we are at 240 days that Senator Carstairs is doing Senate work that takes her away from Manitoba and the judgment was that —
The Chair: I hate to interrupt, Senator Mitchell, but I want to remind our colleagues that the whole purpose of this issue is to review the legal fee request of Senator Carstairs and I don't want the committee to get into the habit of rehashing the Auditor General's report.
Senator Mitchell: I want to put into perspective the profound work and dedication of Senator Carstairs. Thank you for allowing me to do that.
It's very easy to judge this and Senator Carstairs' case in one sense in the cold, clear, light of this day. But if any of us were ever put in that position, it's very different. And to say, calculatingly now, to sever the difference between the possibility of being sued by the Senate and possibility of something happening with the RCMP, you could never withstand the possibility of being taken somewhere by the RCMP. You had to fight that fight.
Given where this started and given the explanation that we've received, Senator Carstairs acted as any Canadian would have acted, as any senator would have acted to defend herself from something that she didn't precipitate and in difficult circumstances. I'm not a lawyer but I would have been reluctant to go to the Binnie case if I had the RCMP circling. As fine a person as Justice Binnie is, and as much as he distinguished himself, that could have prejudiced anything that came past that. So you had to be extremely careful.
It is eminently reasonable that Senator Carstairs is making the request she is making and if we are an institution that judges, as we do every day, fairness toward all Canadians, we shouldn't be dismissing this out of hand. In fact, I would give it very strong consideration. I would be supportive of responding to her request.
Senator McCoy: Senator Carstairs, I'm pleased to see you once again. My respect for you has never diminished.
Being one of those who paid under protest because I felt it more practical and I wanted to proceed with a contribution to public service rather than fight what seemed to me to be a losing battle, I want to underscore for those of you at that table that when I and my lawyer applied to the arbitration process, we applied to the process as it was written. And that process allowed us to first go to steering committee. We were told the steering committee had decided not to exercise its authority or its duty as stated in the policy, but my choice was to go to arbitration.
So I put forward a letter to the arbitrator, clearly saying without prejudice to whatever other rights I might have, which is a perfectly sensible position for anyone to take. One doesn't just throw away whatever rights one might have, especially if one is not at that point entirely clear as to what all those rights might be.
So without prejudice, I said I would participate in the arbitration process. I was told that unless I extinguished all my legal rights other than that one, I could not participate in the arbitration process.
I don't savour the occasion today because if I had not opened my mouth, people would probably have forgotten that I was one of those who had actually paid. This is in public and I'm just drawing attention to that again. I paid under protest, and I will not sit here and not corroborate Senator Carstairs' evidence.
I will go farther and say this: Apart from that, one of the reasons we wanted to engage in the arbitration process at that point was that the process itself that was being outlined in communications from former Justice Ian Binnie did not appear to be a just process in and of itself. As an arbitrator, he was gathering evidence before we even got there, and this concerned my lawyer. I happen to know it concerned other lawyers, because they talked to one another at our request. So we were concerned on two levels at that stage.
I want senators to understand that the process was not then in my opinion and is not now an adequate process for a full and fair dealing with issues that arise with respect to the Senate Administrative Rules. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Carstairs, one of the things that you did not say is that many women are here because of the work you did in the women's community, so I want to acknowledge that as well.
I have a clarification. From listening to you and reading what you have given, I did not realize that we referred — and that's my mistake; I had forgotten — you to the police. So you had two things happening: We referred you to the police, and then you had this debt. You were told that you could deal with the debt with the arbitrator while the police case was still being investigated. Any lawyer — a first-year law student, even — will tell you that you cannot try and settle something and give your case out in a civil suit before the investigation is done.
Am I correct in understanding that you could not deal with the $7,000 you owed to the Senate until the cloud was lifted on the police investigation?
Ms. Carstairs: That was certainly the view of my legal counsel. That is why he wanted clarification of the Binnie process, but we were not allowed to have clarification of that Binnie process until after we had signed on the dotted line that we would agree to the arbitration process. In agreeing to the arbitration process, we gave up all our legal rights.
We had, in my view, absolutely no choice but to say "no'' to Justice Binnie and proceed without going to Justice Binnie. So there was a period of time, literally from June 5 when I received the letter from the Senate to February 11 when I learned I was no longer under RCMP investigation, when I had legal counsel.
Some might have then said, "Okay, you no longer have legal counsel. No problem with legal counsel.'' But as far as I was concerned at that stage, I was in an absolute state of limbo. I had no assurances until much later than that that I had an opportunity to continue with the arbitration process. We were told if we didn't agree to the arbitration process in September 2015, that was the end. That was it.
We then did receive information in September 2016 that, yes, we could then avail ourselves of the arbitration process. But by that point, considering that my entire issue was residency and that issue had been eviscerated, quite frankly, in the decision by Justice Vaillancourt and even by your own counsel when you heard from her on December 8 when she told you in the clearest possible language there is no basis for any suit against senators on issues of residency.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Carstairs, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm speaking for myself. For the first time I realized how the institution let the senators down by not providing any help in making your claims. I can't imagine how many hours my staff spent in answering the questions of the Auditor General. To leave those who left the institution with no help, I personally apologize to you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I will wrap up before we go to a decision, given the fact that the list of questioners has come to an end. There is no doubt the institution was propelled into a deep black hole during that whole process, but it's also important to keep in mind, colleagues, in answer Senator Jaffer's question, that the Senate referred the nine senators to the RCMP as per the recommendation of the Auditor General and as per the acceptance of Internal Economy to not question the Auditor General's recommendation.
Having said that, I also want to point out to senators that once the report was forwarded to the RCMP, they were clear that they were reviewing all 30 cases. At the end of day, they didn't investigate 9; they investigated all 30. Over a sequence of a period of time, they exonerated all 30 and didn't find a single case that warranted a formal investigation.
To the Senator Carstairs' argument, any 1 of the 30 senators could have acquired legal advice on that premise, but the rules and the policies were clear in the Senate prior to this circumstance and remain clear today that for any senators who are under criminal investigation or charged with criminal charges, there is no precedent that we would be reimbursing legal fees. I remind senators that such was the premise upon which we took this decision and other decisions in regard to legal fees.
Of course, this committee has the final word on these issues, and all individual senators have the right to come and appeal before this committee. I look for guidance from this committee as to whether the decision will stand, while also keeping in mind the ramifications of this decision.
If I don't have a motion from any colleague in terms of overturning the decision of Internal Economy to not grant legal fees in this instance — or if the decision will stand and the appeal will be refused. If there is a motion to overturn that decision, now is the time for that motion to be put on the floor.
Senator Mitchell: We need to debate it further, and I would make the motion.
The Chair: We need to debate it further?
Senator Mitchell: Yes. We don't have to do so necessarily today, but we need some consideration of it. This is quite a unique case and a very powerful presentation. I think it needs to be given some consideration.
I would move the motion if not for consideration today, because it is not on the agenda today for the time required.
The Chair: We have to be fair to Senator Carstairs, as well, in terms of taking a decision, but if this committee wants to postpone the decision and conduct further debate, I am at the whim of this committee.
Senator Mitchell: I don't want to debate it now, but I'm not sure —
The Chair: No, we don't want to debate it now?
[Translation]
Do we want to debate that issue later, or shall we make a decision now?
[English]
Senator Lankin: I appreciate the suggestion that Senator Mitchell is making, in part because I feel the need to hear senators talk about this, being new to this institution and not having been here through any of the process that this is referring to or arose from.
I know many of you have gone through conversations. Chair, I appreciate your summary of it, but it isn't sufficient for me to feel that I have a deep understanding of all of the issues and the ramifications that you just spoke to. I feel I would be in a position to abstain, and I don't think that's fair on an issue like this. I think you want all senators to be engaged and informed enough. I feel a need to listen to colleagues debate this.
The Chair: If I hear the committee correctly, we'll thank Senator Carstairs for her testimony. Sorry, Senator Marwah wants to —
Senator Marwah: I'm with Senator Lankin; I don't think I have enough information to really decide. I think Senator Carstairs makes some excellent points, and I don't have enough history to really make a judgment on them. I think I'd like some more facts and like to consider it before I come to a decision.
The Chair: What we will do then is put it on the agenda at a further meeting in order to have further debate on this issue and further consideration.
Senator Carstairs, thank you for your presentation and your time.
Ms. Carstairs: Thank you.
The Chair: Item 3 on the agenda, colleagues is the consolidation of budgets.
There is a motion being distributed right now to you, colleagues. There was a decision taken a number of weeks ago in regard to consolidating the budgets of leadership offices. If you all recall, the way it works now is that leadership offices have their leadership budgets, and they have their Senate budgets accounted in different envelopes. We thought it would be easier for accounting purposes and also disclosure purposes if, once somebody gets elected or appointed to a leadership position, we roll those budgets into one. In the administration, upon review of the minutes, it was not clear when we took that decision. The motion that came forward didn't seem to be recorded clearly, and, as a result, in order to make sure that that decision is valid, we would need a clear and concise motion tabled on the record.
So colleagues, you can take some time just to review this motion. Again, we are revisiting an issue we had dealt with a couple of months back, I believe it is.
Are you still perusing the motion, colleagues? It's moved by Senator Campbell. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Item 4, Advisory Working Group on the One Hundred and Fiftieth Commemorative Medal. Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Thank you, colleagues. For some background on this, many of us are aware — perhaps all of us are aware — that there has been an effort to encourage the government to strike a commemorative medal to celebrate and commemorate Canada's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. Such a medal was struck during our sixtieth anniversary, our one hundredth and, I believe, our one hundred and twenty-fifth. Many of us think that the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary would be a worthwhile occasion to do that. Thus far, we have had no success, and a number of senators have written letters and made speeches in the Senate encouraging the government to take this path. Thus far, they have disagreed. Senator Joyal and I have had a number of discussions over the past couple of weeks, and I am proposing the following motion:
That the Advisory Working Group on a Senate 150th Anniversary Commemorative Medal be established;
That the membership of the working group be as follows: the Honourable Senators Joyal (Co-Chair), Wells (Co-Chair), Bovey and Unger;
That three members shall constitute a quorum;
That the working group be authorized to examine and make recommendations for the production of a Senate 150th Anniversary Commemorative Medal, including the following elements:
Cost
Distribution Criteria
Design
Quantity
Schedule
Other considerations as required for the implementation of the program;
That the working group report to the committee no later than March 31, 2017.
Colleagues, we would then present to this committee the results of our study, and, of course, should it be deemed that we move forward in a positive way, time would be of the essence. In fact, time is of the essence. So we would report to this committee by March 31 with the details of this. I'd be happy to take any questions.
Senator Jaffer: I'm really happy that this is being done. I think this is a good initiative, but may I ask, when you are looking at the committee work, to maybe — I have been involved in two sets of medals being given out — also set out the sort of criteria that has been in the past. Not that we are stuck with it, but it would be helpful in the considerations you are giving so that it can be all transparent.
Senator Wells: Of course, Senator Jaffer. In fact, in my list of things we will consider will be distribution criteria.
Senator Jaffer: What I meant was, if we can keep it the same as we have had for the last two, then we are following a pattern that the government has set. We were given criteria for the last two medals, and that's what I meant.
Senator Wells: I'd like to answer that. We will give that consideration, without question, but it's important for colleagues to know that there are two classifications of commemorative medals, perhaps more but two that I'm going to speak about now. One is sanctioned by Rideau Hall or the Queen or the Crown, so that's different from what we will be doing here. So, yes, I understand that there would be criteria established for previous ones that had such a sanction. This would not, but that doesn't mean that we would not look at the criteria that would be under that umbrella.
Senator Cordy: I think it's important that we have not necessarily the exact same criteria but similar kind of things so that people have an idea of what they are looking for. I just want to say that a lot of people in the Senate have talked about it, but congratulations to you and Senator Joyal for actually taking the initiative. Hopefully it's approved that we set up this working group. Perhaps then we could hope that someone in the House of Commons will do the same thing.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Cordy.
Senator Lankin: Thank you. I'm certainly not opposed to the working group bringing back a recommendation. I think some of the things that I would want to understand, beyond cost and design, are what the assessment of the impact of such a recognition coming only from one chamber of Parliament would be, what precedent there is for such a thing and/or for a government, if you were to be able to convince the government to do this, a recognition that is not sanctioned by Rideau Hall. I would like to see comparative information on that.
I was a provincially elected politician when other Rideau Hall awards were given, and I participated and understand the criteria and distribution. I am a recipient of the Queen's gold and diamond medals, so I sort of understand, let me say, the varying ways in which criteria have been applied by different people. So maybe I am suggesting that I was not worthy of being a recipient. Maybe I was. I think there is a really mixed application of this. So I'm not, on the face of it, eager that this institution do this on its own, but I can be convinced. But I think that, for some of those arguments, I would like to understand the precedent behind it, and, if the committee could bring forward not just the cost-benefit analysis and the criteria but the rationale for why this institution should do this on a stand-alone basis, I'd appreciate that.
Senator Wells: Thank you, senator, for that. We won't be doing a cost-benefit analysis, and we will have a discussion regarding — we can have the discussion around this table, and perhaps this is the right place to have that — the merits of doing this.
I think once we present — if we're approved to establish and present, and should we present — that's when it might be a good idea to have the discussion about whether this is a good idea to have it sanctioned by the Crown, or by our august body.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues, on this issue? Are you moving the motion, Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Yes. In fact, I read the motion, so I would move that all the things I said previous —
Senator Tkachuk: Adopted.
Senator Wells: Thank you. And that the working group report to the committee no later than March 31, 2017.
The Chair: Colleagues, I suspect we are all okay with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll go in camera for the in camera portion — yes, Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Before we go in camera, I have a small item of other business that would be a public item, not an in camera item, so should I bring it up now?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Batters: Okay.
This particular committee room has the capability of being televised, yet our Internal Economy proceedings are not televised. They are audio only, and I know this was an issue that Senator Munson — I don't know if he's on this committee still — has brought up for the entire time that I've been on Internal Economy. Why don't we televise all of our committee meetings that have the capability of doing so?
We have been doing so much to be open and transparent, especially with this particular committee, so I wondered why we don't televise this particular committee's proceedings.
The Chair: We took a number of decisions a number of months back to go public, as we have done, which is already a giant step forward compared to other internal economy bodies of other legislatures. It's up to this committee how much further we want to push the envelope.
Most of our Senate committees, as we all know, are televised, so if there is a will on the part of this committee to turn on the cameras, we can easily do that. Everybody knows I'm a strong proponent of that.
We're going to be televising the chamber itself starting in 2018, and I have always believed that we live in a video world today, a visual world. They hear us, and they might as well see us, but that's up to the committee to determine whether we want to do that.
Senator Batters: I just think it's archaic to have this committee broadcast by audio only. I think there should be video.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: I would agree wholeheartedly. Do we need a motion to that effect?
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor, colleagues. Are there any questions?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, there are.
Don't they have to make choices about what committees they will televise? They are televising committee hearings, they have just chosen not to televise this one. I think they meet with the whips and there's some sort of procedure for this, because they can't televise all of them, so they make choices.
I don't care if they televise this or not, but if I was going to rank them, this would be on the lower end of my committee list, next to all the other public issue committees, rather than discussing taxi chits with the people of Canada.
The Chair: Does that mean, senator, that you support it but low on the priority list?
Senator Cordy: Perhaps we could ask all of the whips to get together and discuss it. I have no problem with it being televised either, because we are all on other committees that are being televised, and we have the audio anyway. It's just the faces that go with the audio that might not look so good at 8 o'clock in the morning.
Senator Tkachuk: They could take slides or something, and run slides while we talk.
Senator Cordy: Perhaps we could have the whips look at it.
The Chair: I want to let everyone know that it was just whispered in my ear that we have the capacity now in the Senate to televise four committees at a time, which we haven't had in the past, so we could be moved up the list rather quickly if this committee wants.
Senator Tkachuk: We could be moved up to number four or something.
Senator Cordy: Or maybe number 10.
The Chair: Again, it seems to me, colleagues, that it's really a decision that, if we're comfortable with it and this committee approves, we could move forward on.
We have a motion by Senator Batters, seconded by Senator Mitchell. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Batters.
(The committee continued in camera.)