Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence for March 1, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 1, 2007
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:42 a.m. in public to consider applications for international travel; and in camera to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, colleagues. A matter has been raised by Senator Robichaud. It is in the committee's hands whether we do it now or at the end. Originally, we had hoped to talk about accommodations at the beginning, but I am in the committee's hands.
I am referring to last night's news item on CTV:
Senate shuts down little known emergency fund. The Senate has shut down a slush fund that gave thousands of dollars to Liberals over the past years.
Colleagues, do you want to do it now or at the end of the discussion?
If we discuss it now, it will be senators only, with Madam Boucher.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: First, let me apologize to staff and to our reporters. Contrary to what you may think, we think we know what we are doing.
Welcome back. We are going public with this, Senator Robichaud.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this article raises doubts on the activities of our committee, namely, that the money was disbursed without everyone's knowledge and that the distribution was not transparent.
I know that we are allowed to engage in a little political partisanship from time to time. I have done that myself, on occasion. But this goes beyond any type of partisanship. In my opinion, this looks like a campaign to tarnish the reputation of senators, particularly Liberal ones. The article says that Liberal senators took advantage of this secret fund when, in actual fact, all of the senators were made aware of it.
I do not often get angry, but this is really too much. On the one hand, we are doing our utmost to convey a true image of the Senate, and all of the work that we do here, while, in one fell swoop, this article demolishes all of our efforts to highlight the positive contributions that we make.
Moreover, it tarnishes the reputation of one person who is beyond reproach; I am referring to Senator Joyal, who used the fund for a work-related project. I, myself, contributed to his work. I am almost speechless, so I will let the others intervene. I do not think we can ignore what has been published. This is serious.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we go to the floor, a number of senators want to speak. Senator Robichaud, when I left the chamber yesterday I spoke with CTV, and I watched the news last night. CTV did not cover anywhere near what I said to them: they included only one comment. My major comment was that with all due respect to Senator Stratton, who is a friend and colleague, I indicated that if Senator LeBreton did not know what was going on in the Internal Economy Committee, perhaps she should shed some light on her relationship between her and her colleagues who sit on this bipartisan committee. I was upset that she referred to this $300,000 as a ``Liberal slush fund.''
Senator Robichaud: ``Little known.''
The Chairman: I share your sentiments, Senator Robichaud. I was upset by it. I am not a media hawk, as most people on this committee know. However, when I was told by the media that this money was referred to as a Liberal slush fund, I spoke to them. Unfortunately, they did not cover everything.
They asked a couple of questions about why Liberals access the fund. I said it was open to everyone: Everyone in the chamber knew about it and every office was notified. It had nothing to do with partisanship. The committee was bipartisan. Senator LeBreton's deputy leader sits on this committee regularly, and if she does not know what is going on, she should talk to her colleagues who sit on this committee.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Even if you have an opportunity to correct the record and explain what really happened, when this type of article is published, it is assumed to be accurate. I am not singling out Senator Stratton, but this information is sent to every senator's office, and Senator LeBreton should have been aware of it. If she did not know about it, then she was not doing her job.
[English]
The Chairman: I also share the concerns you raised with respect to Senator Joyal. Senator Joyal applied to the committee, as did a number of other senators. He was one of the few that were approved but the demands on that fund were so excessive that we decided that if we were to distribute the funds according to the demands, it would be totally unfair to all senators.
We made a decision in this committee that we would stop the fund; and that the fairest thing to do would be to redistribute it to all senators' budgets. In the event that the money is not used, it goes back into the general revenue fund — so it is no big deal. The way it has been construed by Senator LeBreton is outrageous. I share your concerns and I share your outrage.
Senator Downe: I share the concerns expressed. This is obviously — but not transparently — an attempt by Senator LeBreton to change the topic because she has caused tremendous disruption in the Senate in the last few days with her efforts to change chairs on various committees.
Those arrangements received tremendous negative coverage across the country. In Prince Edward Island, two or three people mentioned Senator Segal to me. They do not know Senator Segal at all, but they know him from his public profile. They wanted to know what happened to him, and why he was treated so badly by the Conservatives. Senator Meighen, as well, is an outstanding Canadian who was also treated badly. Senator LeBreton has gone completely over the line.
I checked my file this morning and a memo signed by you, chair, on June 20, 2005 was addressed to all senators, not to Liberal senators, Conservative senators, Progressive Conservative senators or independent senators but all senators, informing them of the arrangements that were made. I suggest, chair, that you write the CTV bureau chief and attach a copy of this memo — it is not marked confidential and I have copies in both languages — informing him he was misled, either intentionally or otherwise, and he then misled Canadians as to the nature of this fund.
The Chairman: I have no problem doing that. I should add though, that I did give about a 10-minute interview that was witnessed by one of the assistants for Senator Hervieux-Payette yesterday in the lobby and I think it received about two seconds airing. That 10-minute interview received about a two-second airing. I have no problem writing that letter, trying to correct the record, but it is obvious that CTV, for whatever reason, are far more interested in listening to the — let me be temperate here —
Senator Downe: The question for CTV is: How do they feel about intentionally misleading their viewers because they were misled?
The Chairman: They do not think they were misled.
Senator Downe: When you show them the memo they will. Senator LeBreton cannot claim she did not know about the fund when we all received the memo.
The Chairman: I have no problem sending that letter out and I will.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday, when I received a call from the journalists of CTV asking me to comment about a book project in which I am involved, I thought there was a genuine interest in the work of a senator. That book project is public. There is nothing hidden about it. I have solicited various contributions to that book from Canadian academics and scholars, and I have informed other senators about the book and invited them to contribute to it. I thought the story was a genuine interest one about the works of senators.
When I went to give the interview, I was told that the journalist was informed by Senator LeBreton's office about the money that the Senate is contributing to that book project. I was surprised, not that the money the Senate contributed should not be public. On the contrary, in the previous book I published and contributed, like the one on the role of the Senate, it is clearly acknowledged in the opening pages of the book that the book was published with the support of the Senate. Nothing is hidden about any projects in which I am involved, and any projects that have called upon and benefited from the funds of the Senate.
When I read the transcript of the report that was on the air last night, I think it is preposterous to say that the arrangements, ``. . . are beyond the knowledge of the public.'' Those are the words of Senator LeBreton:
There are all these arrangements made are beyond the knowledge of the public, let alone people in the Senate.
That quote is from Senator Marjory LeBreton.
It is always clear to the book editors, in this case McGill-Queen's University Press, that the book is put together with the help of the Senate. That is part of the initiative. When Senator LeBreton mentions that it is beyond the knowledge of the public, I am sorry, but that is wrong.
First of all, that fund is in the budget of the Senate. Does she read the budget of the Senate when she votes on it, yes or no? If she does not read the budget of the Senate when she votes on it, she can only blame herself for not knowing what is going on in the Senate.
First, there is the budget of the Senate.
Second, the budget is put together by the Internal Economy Committee. The committee is composed of senators from both sides of the chamber and has the support and contribution of independent senators. Nothing is secret about the budget of the Senate.
Third, when that budget was put together, it was open to all senators and made known to all senators, for example, the letter of which Senator Downe has reminded us that was sent by you Mr. Chairman, on June 20, 2005. Any senators could apply to that supposed slush fund.
Fourth, there was a form to file. It is not a cheque that you receive only because you phone in and say, give me some money. A form was put together by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and applicants had to file the form and meet the requirements.
Fifth, that form is vetted by the Internal Economy Committee subcommittee that operates and manages that fund. It is not approved by the Liberal senators, but by the Internal Economy Committee. It is not a Liberal fund managed by Liberals.
Sixth, when the money is approved and the money is used to support the book, the copyrights of the book are handed back to the government, to the Canadian Centre for Management Development, as I did for the book on the role of the Senate that many senators contributed to on both sides of the chamber. Senator Murray was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, as it then was, and Senator Pitfield was an independent senator.
All the money that the government invested in the book on the Senate has been reimbursed through copyrights that I have given back to the Canadian centre forever. I have not touched one single cent personally. On the contrary, I assumed many personal expenses from my own pocket, not my own Senate budget. You all know it is not enough to provide all the costs for such endeavours.
I feel this is wrong. This is non-ethical. I repeat, it is non-ethical. What is ethical? Ethical is what is right; what you feel in your conscience is right. In my own conscience, what Senator LeBreton has done is not ethical. It is not proper. It is not the thing to do.
She cannot claim that this fund is beyond the knowledge of the public when senators from her own party are involved, and with the fact that everything is published. Everything is recognized when it is published and the money is given back to a government agency. This is what I call smearing tactics. It is disgusting, honourable senators.
Let me talk to you now, not as a senator, but as a person. I try to do my job correctly. You might not agree with some of the ideas I propose. That is fair. It is part of the debate. That is why there is a Senate of adversarial ideas. We come to a consensus, take a vote and move on. That is the basis of this chamber and the way it functions. One thing we have to maintain among ourselves is respect for one another, because we have been in this chamber for a long time.
Senator LeBreton has been in this chamber for 14 or 15 years. She is not a new senator. She is a seasoned senator and one for whom I have the greatest respect. I have sat with Senator LeBreton on the Rules Committee, among others, and I have always listened carefully to her views because she came with a background, in my opinion, that was helpful for the work of the Senate. However, to try to undermine the credibility of a senator by making false allegations based on ignorance, especially in her position and capacity, puts her in danger of losing her credibility. Honourable senators, it is a sad day for the Senate, especially coming from the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
We have had other debates on other issues. We had some debates last week, but I think that this one, on top of the other, helps us to conclude what kind of contribution Senator LeBreton wants to bring to this chamber and how she wants to respect the responsibility and the contributions of individual senators.
Honourable senators, whatever you do, even though you try to abide by the book, respect each and every rule, abide by the fact that you are here to serve the Canadian public and your constituents, in the eyes of Senator LeBreton, partisan interests override any kind of honest contribution. While it might be her choice to live by that level of commitment, honourable senators, I have lost confidence in her as government leader.
Senator Prud'homme: I could go long on this but I will be short. I imagine there are two or three new senators here so with your permission I will give a quick history of the mess we are in today. Each of us used to have a budget. That is the way I will explain it.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would just like to point out that when I became a senator, I was told about the fund.
Senator Prud'homme: Not that fund, I mean the one that came before it.
Senator Dawson: I was told about the fund. There were Conservative senators who were appointed at the same time, and they explained how the fund operated, in other words, there used to be money transferred between senators, so they created a fund. You do not need to have been here for 14, 16 or 18 years to know that. When we are appointed, Mr. Chairman, we are given instructions.
Senator Prud'homme: There is no need for you to get excited this morning, Senator Dawson! This is not your concern.
Senator Dawson: Well, I do not need to be lectured, senator!
Senator Prud'homme: But that is what you are doing to me! If you prefer, it can be addressed to Senator Campbell.
Senator Dawson: He was at the same briefing!
Senator Prud'homme: I came out strongly against it. I think that will be the only way around it.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I do not need a briefing, Senator Prud'homme. Why not mind your own business?
Senator Prud'homme: That is exactly what I want to avoid, in the full Senate.
Senator Stratton: You better not walk when you chew gum.
Senator Prud'homme: That is what I want to avoid during this debate. That is why I am going slowly, to avoid what I predict will happen. There was that exchange between senators. I always gave back $50,000, more or less, every year. I was fed up with being asked for favours by senators who I knew well. It was difficult to say no to one. Finally, thank God, the fund was abolished, and we decided to have this kind of fund of $300,000, to which members could apply. I still opposed it. I did not want it. I said some will know better than others how to cope with this fund. At least, that was regular. The fund was abolished between senators. The $300,000 was clearly adopted. I will not say Senator LeBreton should have known. This is the fact. The fund was duly accepted around the table with the proviso that senators could apply to the board for special — and that is where I got very upset — a special what, et cetera. Then we realized later on, even that does not work. Then I was happy. We abolished the $300,000. If we were to explain it simply like this, clearly Senator Joyal has a reason to be upset. No doubt if it was me, I would explode. He is exploding in his own way. We need to explain clearly what was replaced and what was abolished, and that should be the end of the question. Everybody should have known that, including, of course, Senator LeBreton. If you think I am giving you a moral, or whatever, I think you misunderstood me.
The Chairman: Before we go to Senator Dawson, I want to make a comment. I took 10 minutes with the media yesterday, Senator Prud'homme, explaining that point. You see what was reported: nothing, absolutely nothing. They only engaged me in some kind of a debate about an election issue about which I had nothing to say. I was talking only about the funding, exactly as you explained. This morning, we are talking not about the elimination of the fund, but the light that was cast on the fund by Senator LeBreton. She said it was a Liberal slush fund, which is outrageous.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I simply want to add that she cannot plead ignorance. It is obvious that the correspondence I was given upon my arrival — along with other Conservative senators — made it clear that a fund existed. She is acting in bad faith. Some years ago she had accused me, personally, of doing all kinds of things. She has no ethics — I agree with you on that — but we have to make things clear. I think a letter is a must. I do not always share everyone else's opinion when it comes to the media, and I do not always like what they say or what they do, but when it comes right down to it, we have to provide them with the information. I agree that the chairman should send a letter to explain the facts. At the very least, we should ask the minister to apologize.
[English]
The Chairman: Agreed, Senator Dawson. Are there any other comments or questions?
Senator Stollery: I have a comment. I want to point out that Senator LeBreton was a member of this committee for many years.
The Chairman: She still is.
Senator Stollery: Even before she was Leader of the Government and automatic member she was a member of this committee. I find it curious that CTV has not reported you accurately. That is something the committee should take up.
Senator Campbell: First, I want to apologize to Senator Stratton.
Senator Stratton: And I apologize to you.
Senator Campbell: I am a year older after yesterday, but my brain has not caught up yet. The thing I find most offensive about this whole issue is not only the slush fund idea. I want all honourable senators to take a look around this room. We are surrounded by evidence of what one senator has done for this place. I think it's disgusting that one senator is picked out, when there was $300,000 that could be applied for, by any number. Who else applied for, and received, funding? I think it slanderous, and I realize that I am not the example of decorum on many occasions but to read this is beyond the pale, and it does not make sense. It makes no sense that we take each other on, in the media, on issues, that clearly are not truthful. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if a letter does not do it then we hold a press conference because we have to get this out. This is simply wrong. If we do not address this issue, it will continue. We will see this time and time again. We have to bring this mess under control.
The Chairman: Thank you very much Senator Campbell. Normally, as a committee, we would call upon our communications director to prepare a letter for my signature. In the circumstances, because this issue is such a highly charged political one, I suggest that we not do that and we rely upon our own staff to prepare the letter. I assure you that it will be done today. I will call upon my political staff to prepare something that I am certain will reflect the comments and the will of the committee. I do not want to involve our own communications people, because it would put them in an awkward position. If the committee is okay with that, I will do it myself, and I will have it done today.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Senator Cook: When I came to this place, I believed I could make a difference. I do not pretend to understand why this is happening but, for whatever reason, we have been victimized by the media. I do not think a letter will cut it. I prefer a press conference to force the media to the table. Where will a letter go — to the editor's desk or in the waste basket? It is decision time. The buck stops here. We have only to tell the truth. We have to tell the truth coldly and with intelligence. I can understand Senator Joyal's position. I made contributions to his books when I came here because it was the worthy and right thing to do. A piece of paper to CTV will not cut it; it will only prolong it. We had that problem on another issue in this committee last November.
The Chairman: Senator Cook, with the greatest of respect, it does not matter what you say. For example, I am looking at this press release from CTV that says ``There are three or four of her senators that sit on that committee,'' said Senator Jim Munson. ``Perhaps she should open a little light between her and them.'' That was my comment. Jim Munson did not make that comment. It does not matter what you say or how you do it. They will construe it whatever way they want. However, if we put it in writing and send it to them, then we have a little better hope. We will send not only to CTV but to everybody. We will make it a printed release. More than that, how do you control the media? You do not because they print whatever they want to print. I gave them 10 minutes yesterday talking about opening some light in her relationship between her and the members of this committee, and I commented on the fact that her deputy leader sits on this committee regularly. However, none of that was reported.
Senator Massicotte: I understand that two things are proposed. First, to correct the record, send a letter. Second, ask for an apology and retraction from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is that the proposal?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: On the first point for the record, you definitely should do so in a letter. I suggest that they purposefully manipulated the information and gave the wrong impression. In a legal sense, they might want to do something to correct the record instead of being exposed. In the past, they have done that. As to whether we should hold a press conference, I suspect they would not come. I suggest we rely on the communications people, who are more expert in such matters than we are, to advise as to how to get the best message across and ask for a retraction and clarification from the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We should ask the Government House Leader in the Senate to come and explain what she said and, at the same time, we can ask her to apologize. Our committee is being dragged through the mud as if we have something to hide.
Senator Bacon: And the entire Senate!
Senator Robichaud: Yes, indeed, the entire Senate, not only the committee. I will not move a motion because we would have to vote on it, but I am giving it some serious thought.
Senator Massicotte: Instead of asking the Government House Leader to retract what she said, let us ask her to appear before our committee to explain it in a public session.
Mr. Paul Belisle, Clerk of the Committee: We could do both.
Senator Bacon: When I was in your position, Mr. Chairman, I was insulted in public but the apologies were in private. This is too private a venue for an apology. We should demand that the truth be acknowledged in the Senate itself, and not in private. That is what we should require of the Government House Leader in the Senate.
This committee, in my opinion, is ``private.'' I experienced that type of thing for two years, and you are aware of it. My colleagues criticized me in public, and apologized in private. That is no longer how we should be doing politics. Word travels fast, and is often repeated. The fact that the media will not let go of this means that we have to be reacting constantly. We should not deal with this behind closed doors, but in the Senate Chamber, in public.
[English]
The Chairman: I agree, Senator Bacon, and if we follow up on that idea of asking Senator LeBreton to appear before the committee, maybe we should bring in the cameras and make it public.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: No, because it will be televised in three days. We have to do it now. What the public sees is not the correction, but what came before that. The public does not remember the corrected facts. What holds their attention is the headlines, even if they are not always accurate. We should ask Senator LeBreton to retract what she said before 10 a.m. today, and this should be done publicly, in the Senate Chamber. There is no reason for her to have been unaware of this situation when everyone else knew about it.
I have been here for 12 years now. When I chaired the Board of Internal Economy, both political parties got along famously, with no partisanship. The atmosphere in the Senate is deteriorating, and that is unacceptable. It takes all of the joy out of our work, regardless of the party to which we belong, and I am referring to all of us. There is no longer any pleasure in the work that we do in the Senate. We no longer enjoy what we do, even when we are working with people who do not share our viewpoint. We should be able to talk things through and come to some type of understanding. That is the way it has always worked. Heads of state must first know how to lead their own group. That goes for the leaders as well.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Bacon, for your excellent suggestion.
Senator Bacon: You have until 10 a.m., Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, I have not had much to say about this matter but it seems that there are issues of libel and slander against Senator Joyal and others, although I do not know for certain because I have not looked at this carefully. It seems that a pattern is developing. Libel and slander are serious matters. When you impugn someone's reputation, I believe that there might be a case for you, as chairman, to look into the legal implications. If CTV has not reported accurately what has been said, then this situation should be looked at seriously by the Senate. Senator Joyal's reputation has been impugned and we should not allow that.
The Chairman: Thank you. I will go back to Senator Bacon's suggestion, which is a good one, but how do we do it before ten o'clock?
Senator Bacon: Make people work at it.
Senator Robichaud: Suspend the committee and then resume when it is done.
Senator Prud'homme: There are many ways to do it.
The Chairman: I want to speak to our leader and ask if I can lead off Question Period in the chamber and ask the questions of Senator LeBreton. If the past is any indication, we will get only a skate around the canal and we will not get any answers.
Senator Baker: You have to look at the law.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: As you know, any senator is allowed to question any committee chair. Someone should perhaps ask you if the information that was published is accurate. Then, perhaps through a Senate inquiry, you will be able to correct the record.
Senator Massicotte: Do you mean that I should question the minister?
Senator Robichaud: No, not the minister, because you will not get a straight answer. The question should be addressed to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
[English]
The Chairman: That suggestion is excellent and probably a better way to handle it.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: I do not agree with that. It is not up to us to correct the record, that should be done by the person who provided the wrong information to CTV.
[English]
I think she should apologize to all of us on both sides: all of us.
The Chairman: May I suggest that we break for about 15 minutes? I will go and talk to Senator Hervieux-Payette and I will come back. Perhaps, Senator Stratton, you could talk to Senator LeBreton.
Senator Stratton: Senator LeBreton, as I understand it, is in cabinet until noon, and then she is at the Heart Institute after that. I will not be able to talk to her until noon.
I appreciate what everybody has said, but I also think that the issue points to a basic problem we have in trying to solve the requests for additional monies for special projects carried out by senators. That pain has been an ongoing one for this committee since I have been here. We all know that.
I think, as well as addressing the issue you are talking about now, we also need to address that core issue because it leads to this kind of thing, which is tragic and unfortunate. This fund has been a bad apple for a long, long time. I will talk to Senator LeBreton when I see her at noon.
The Chairman: I thank you for your comments, Senator Stratton and I agree with you. However, this committee, in all good conscience, has attempted to address that issue with the fund. It did not work and we have eliminated it. We indicated to everyone that the discussion about transfers will be on our agenda. Most people do not have an appetite for that. It may occur again or it may not. I do not think it will, from the people I have spoken to on the committee.
The more important thing right now is the headline here that says this fund was a little known emergency fund — it was a slush fund for Liberals. That is the problem here. It has nothing to do with the issue of setting up funds, having transfers or anything else. It is the light that Senator LeBreton has cast this fund in that infuriates me. I take absolute exception to it.
Senator Stratton: I will not disagree with what people have said around this table. I simply say that as well as dealing with the issue you are talking about this morning, we still have to deal with that key issue.
The Chairman: I agree and we will deal with that, Senator Stratton. That matter is for a future agenda. Perhaps we should take a 15-minute break. We will resume about 9:40 a.m. Is that okay with everybody?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few comments about Senator Bacon's suggestion that we demand an apology before 10 a.m. I am not sure how we can do that, but, before 10 a.m., we could try to figure out a way to do it. I do not know what the Government House Leader in the Senate has to do with all of this and we should not continue with this because it is not something that was debated in our committee.
[English]
Senator Massicotte: I think Senator Robichaud raised a valid point and I had the same reaction. This issue should not be a partisan political one. This issue affects the institution, and I am not sure I feel comfortable about going to see our political leader.
This issue affects all of us. We are here representing the value of the institutions and we should leave it on that basis. If you need permission from the leader to have priority in Question Period, good enough. However, it is not for the political leaders to decide how we should be treated and how this matter should be dealt with.
The Chairman: That is a good point.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Maybe I am missing something, but I do not think we understand what Senator Bacon has said. If I were Senator Joyal, I would hit the roof and I would ask for help to draft a question of privilege. You have time, before 10 a.m. this morning, to file a question of privilege. Then, the entire Senate would be made aware. That is what Senator Bacon had in mind.
[English]
The Chairman: That has to be filed with the clerk before ten o'clock.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: That is why it has to be done before ten o'clock.
Senator Prud'homme: I do not know what Senator Joyal or others would like to do, but that is the explanation.
[English]
The Chairman: It has to come from Senator Joyal.
Mr. Bélisle: According to the rules, the senator would give it to me. I believe it is three hours before the sitting time, so 10:30 a.m. would be the limit.
Senator Joyal: As I read the accusation by Senator LeBreton, it addresses all Liberals. Of course, I am used as an example, but the comment is addressed to all Liberals. It states clearly that the Senate has shut down a slush fund that gave thousands of dollars to Liberals, plural, over the years — and at least one Conservative senator has learned of the fund recently.
The accusation is made that the Liberals have done something for themselves, outside the knowledge of everybody, and I am one who has benefited from this fund. If there is a question of privilege, it should come from the Leader of the Opposition, because all Liberals are covered by the accusation. If there is an impact on the works and the mandate of the Senate, it is that it brings doubt on the work of Liberal senators — that they are in the Senate to benefit themselves as a group. That is why I think the question of privilege, if there is one, should be raised by the opposition leader.
The Chairman: I guess what most of us are grappling with is the fact that this accusation is so outrageous that this was a slush fund for Liberals. At least one Conservative senator did not read her mail is how this should read, because every senator was aware of this fund. Every senator knew of it. If we wanted to be mean and nasty, we could say that the only people who do any work are Liberals; the Conservatives are not doing any work. However, we do not want to be mean and nasty.
Senator Fraser: I think raising the question of privilege is an excellent idea. However, then one must consider closely the substance of it. The CTV report does not quote Senator LeBreton as saying that this was a slush fund. It quotes her as saying — and I find this deeply offensive, ``There are all these arrangements made are beyond the knowledge of the public, let alone people in the Senate.''
That is not true — we know it is not true — but if we want to make a question of privilege against Senator LeBreton, it has to be that. We cannot use of the words, ``slush fund.'' Although she may well have used them, for all I know, we have no evidence that she used them.
The Chairman: I agree, Senator Fraser. Further, any funds that were used would be noted in public accounts.
Senator Massicotte: I want to clarify something. My memory may not serve me right, but I do not think this summary is word for word what I saw on CTV last night. I do not think it is complete. It is a summary and we should be careful. I saw you quoted on TV last night but I do not see it here.
Senator Downe: I did not see the news last night but I checked the website when I came to the office this morning and printed this off. This is all that was on the website.
Senator Massicotte: Often, the website has only a summary. From what I saw on TV last night, I do not think there is a legal right against CTV given the way in which they nuanced it. What is bad about the Leader of the Government is that the report definitely imputed a negative sense of the institution of the Senate, per se. You could argue that last night, CTV gave both sides of the argument but the tone they gave the institution was negative.
The Chairman: If I read the mood of the committee properly, perhaps we should have a motion to ask the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to raise a question of privilege with respect to the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and ask for a retraction. Do I read the mood of the committee properly? If so, can I have a motion to that effect and then pass it immediately to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate?
Senator Nolin: Obviously, I will abstain.
Senator Massicotte: Retract and clarify.
The Chairman: Senator Massicotte raises a good point. We have gone off the deep end with respect to the comments we have read. The media frequently misconstrue or misinterpret comments. They attributed a comment that I made to Senator Munson, so who knows? I never said that it is all about taking the Senate down another notch so Harper can use it in an election campaign. I never said that. However, we assume that everything we read about Senator LeBreton is true. Therefore, Senator Massicotte's point to ask for clarification and retraction is good, if necessary.
Senator Massicotte: We should get a copy of precisely what was said last night on CTV.
The Chairman: Can we have a motion? It is moved by Senator Cook, seconded by Senator Massicotte. All in favour?
Senator Stratton: On division.
The Chairman: We have an abstention by Senator Nolin.
Senator Downe: It is important as well to point out at some point during the day the obvious reason that this outrageous statement was made in the first place, and that it was simply to divert attention from the problem that Senator LeBreton was having with her own caucus. We have heard from them individually and through the media when she tried to shuffle the chairs of three or four committees. This was a diversionary tactic and we were the victim of a drive-by smear.
The Chairman: Honestly, I cannot comment on that. I do not know what is going on in the other caucus. If they have problems with their chair and moving people around, that is their own business. It is none of my business. I do not want to comment on it.
Senator Massicotte: Are we sending a letter to CTV?
The Chairman: Absolutely: We are sending a letter to CTV but I do not want to be involved in the internal politics of the Conservative Party. That is their business. It is none of mine.
However, if we are to raise a question of privilege, then we need to have someone speak to the Leader of the Opposition as soon as possible.
Senator Fraser: You could also raise a question of privilege. You were the one who notified every senator of the existence of this fund.
The Chairman: She should be notified but it would be best coming from her. I am prepared to do it if necessary: I have no problem with it at all.
Senator Campbell: Will I be on today by any chance?
The Chairman: Absolutely: It is such an important issue.
I do not know where we are in terms of instructions from the committee and whether to leave it to the chair to decide how to deal with this issue. My immediate reaction is to ask the leader if I could lead off Question Period and ask Senator LeBreton, first of all, if the comments that are attributed to her are correct. We will give her that opportunity and if they are correct, I would follow with a question asking her to retract them. If the comments are properly attributed to her, they are obviously incorrect, and even the Conservative members of our committee would agree this was not a little-known emergency fund.
It was a well known procedure that was adopted after the report of Senator Massicotte who chaired the subcommittee on budgets and committee funding.
I do not know how to do this properly. If the will of the committee is to leave it to me to deal with it in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, we can erase what went before in terms of motions to do A, B or C. I will deal with it in consultation with the leader. Is that okay with the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Before we go to our first item for this morning, I want to deal with an application from Senator Campbell.
Mr. Bélisle: You are still in public.
The Chairman: Senator Campbell has made a request for international travel and, as is the rule for the Internal Economy Committee, anybody who does so, appears before the committee and makes the case.
Senator Campbell: I have applied for funding to go to the International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm in Poland and another conference in Liverpool on the way back. The total amount requested is $4,800. I will pay for the airfare with Air Mile points, which I think is only fair since they were accumulated by me, flying from Vancouver to Ottawa and back and forth. I am not applying for airfare.
This conference is a major international conference in its eighteenth year. This conference will be the third one I have attended. Conference organizers have asked me to chair a plenary session, as well as a talk on the Vancouver model for harm reduction.
I supplied much information but I can give the committee more information from the website of the conference, if they so desire.
The Chairman: Are there questions, colleagues?
Senator Robichaud: Senator Campbell, it says here that you are an official member of the opening team.
Senator Campbell: Yes, the conference starts with the United Nations and with non-governmental organizations and then the first plenary session. I will chair that first plenary session.
It is entitled, ``Harm Reduction — Coming of Age,'' and it is designed to reflect on the previous 18 years and where we will go in the future with this form of drug policy.
Senator Robichaud: You will be called upon to share your experience with what is happening in Vancouver.
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Senator Stratton: How large is this conference? How many countries?
Senator Campbell: There are 60 countries involved in the association. I think in Vancouver last year there were about 1,200 at it. The year before that, it was in Belfast. I did not go to that. The year before, it was in Melbourne, and I was a presenter there. There were probably 1,000 to 1,200 people there. It is incredibly well attended from across the board, so they have United Nations, federal, state, provincial and municipal governments looking at the issues.
Senator Stratton: It has been around for 16 years?
Senator Campbell: It has been 18 years.
Senator Stratton: The question with these organizations is, are they having an impact? Are they making effective change?
Senator Campbell: I believe they have an impact. When the conference first started, the whole idea of harm reduction in a drug policy framework of enforcement, prevention and treatment was sort of foreign. The countries that would have been involved at the initial stage would have been Britain, Switzerland, Holland, Australia and probably not the United States. Since then it has grown and, with the end of the Cold War, it has gone to countries that normally we would not see. We have the Czech Republic and Poland in the Eastern European countries. China and the Asian countries are now coming to the conference so it is making a difference.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there further questions?
Senator Prud'homme: I remember applying to go to Lebanon and Senator Robichaud —
Senator Robichaud: I refused.
Senator Prud'homme: I immediately decided not to ask for my expense. I was to be honoured by the state of Lebanon at the highest level. Is it possible that an organization could sponsor your trip?
Senator Campbell: The organization is not in a position to sponsor it. In the past, I went to Melbourne and that was paid for by the city of Vancouver.
For the conference in Vancouver, of course I was there already so there were no costs. There is no budget per se for it. I am sorry you did not go to Lebanon.
Senator Prud'homme: It is strange that it happened this morning. I was won over by the strong argument of Senator Robichaud in the old days. For the same reason, I would not oppose it, of course. I will not oppose it but for the same reason that Senator Robichaud has expressed in the past. We need to revisit that issue eventually. When we started passing parts of our budget to each other, it led to some difficult decisions. We cut it off. We put in the $300,000 and we found ourselves in difficulty so we cut it off. Now the latest and the new stuff is that we must ask permission if we are invited to major conferences. That has nothing to do with your conference per se but where do we draw a line? It is difficult to say this conference seems to be more important and this one is less important. At this time, I would like to give a notice that eventually we need to revisit what is perfect at the moment. It is either yes or no but I think we need to revisit that issue eventually for the reason that I have expressed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Prud'homme. Can we have a motion to approve the request by Senator Campbell? It is moved by Senator Stollery, seconded by Senator Nolin. All those in favour? Contraminded? Carried.
Senator Robichaud: In the past I have abstained. I think we have to look at it.
The Chairman: We have one abstention?
Senator Prud'homme: Two.
The Chairman: Two abstentions.
Thank you. We also have a report from Senator Stratton that we would like to deal with before we go to the Long Term Vision and Plan, LTVP.
Senator Downe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amounts are small because the funding is mostly for additional meal cost and one consultant for two days' work. I move the adoption of the report unless there are questions?
The Chairman: All those in favour? Contraminded? Carried.
Colleagues, can we go in camera now?
The committee continued in camera.