Wallin, Duffy, Brazeau and the latest on the Senate scandals - Macleans.ca

Wallin, Duffy, Brazeau and the latest on the Senate scandals

Split in Tory ranks deepens over bid to suspend disgraced senators


OTTAWA – The Harper government’s bid for summary execution of disgraced senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau has turned into an agonizingly slow soap opera that is exposing a nasty — and increasingly personal — family feud within the ruling Conservative caucus.

Debate over government motions to suspend, without pay, the three erstwhile Conservatives continued to rage in the Senate for the third straight day — with no end in sight.

Thursday’s debate saw Marjory LeBreton, former government leader in the Senate, fire back at Duffy for alleging she was part of a “monstrous” conspiracy to intimidate him into accepting a secret deal to pay back ineligible expenses or face being disqualified from sitting in the Senate.

She variously described Duffy’s claims as “utterly preposterous,” “blatant falsehood” “a whopper” and “stretching credulity.”

And, although LeBreton didn’t directly question Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s judgment in appointing Duffy to the upper chamber, she revealed that she was never a fan of the former broadcast journalist, who hosted a daily show on federal politics until his elevation to the Senate in 2009.

“I sometimes found myself … frustrated by his style of journalism, trading as he did, more often than not, on gossip and the latest hot rumour,” LeBreton told the upper chamber.

“And sometimes I was so disgusted that I felt like putting my foot through the television set.”

When anyone complained, Duffy would say, “It’s showbiz,” LeBreton said, implying that Duffy has taken the same approach to justifying his role in the Senate expenses scandal.

Duffy and Brazeau, along with former Liberal senator Mac Harb, are under investigation by the RCMP for allegedly fraudulently claiming Senate housing allowances and living expenses.

The Mounties are also investigating the fact that Duffy accepted $90,000 from Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, to reimburse his ineligible expenses.

That $90,000 cheque was again a focal point down the hall during the daily question period in the House of Commons, where the prime minister’s combative bluster from the day before was gone, replaced by a bob-and-weave defence.

Where Harper insisted in June that nobody but Wright and Duffy knew of the reimbursement scheme, he changed his tune Thursday, saying Wright “informed very few people” — all of them known to be key Harper confidantes.

“Mr. Speaker, I refer the prime minister to Hansard of June 5,” retorted NDP Leader Tom Mulcair. “There was no ‘very few’ in there. It was ‘nobody.'”

A Senate committee has also asked the RCMP to investigate Wallin’s allegedly improper travel expenses.

All three maintain they did nothing wrong and have denounced the proposed suspensions as a violation of their fundamental right to due process and the presumption of innocence. None has yet been charged, much less convicted of any wrongdoing.

They also claim they’re being railroaded by a government desperate to put an end to the scandal, which has engulfed it for almost a year.

They got support for that contention Thursday from one of Harper’s most loyal foot soldiers: Manitoba Sen. Don Plett, a former president of the federal Conservative party.

“I understand the desire to have a fresh start in the Senate, a clean slate,” Plett told the upper chamber.

“The problem here is what we are trying to do over-simplifies a complex issue with a quick fix at the expense of three individuals before giving them the opportunity to defend themselves.”

Plett said he’s not sure he’ll support a Liberal amendment to refer the suspension motions to a Senate committee, which would give the three senators a public hearing. But he said he knows he won’t support the government’s motions and may propose amendments of his own.

“I’m actually considering voting against a motion from my leader for the first time in my political life,” he said, his voice quavering with emotion.

Down the hall from the Senate, Conservative MP Peter Goldring also chimed in, arguing that the motions set a dangerous precedent.

“(If) you come down on three senators and treat them without regard to the constitution, without regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, next it could any one of them, it could be anyone here, it could be anyone, anywhere. It could be you,” he said outside the Commons.

Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal, who’s been leading the charge against the motions, particularly in the case of Wallin, said he’s heard similar concerns from other Tory MPs. And he suggested opposition will grow the longer the debate goes on and the public begins to twig to what’s at stake.

That said, he conceded it would be “unduly optimistic” to say a majority of senators are prepared at this point to vote against the motions.

Government Senate leader Claude Carignan admitted the debate over the suspension motions could drag on into next week. But he said that’s proof that the three senators are getting a fair hearing.

Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau have had the opportunity to spend “a very long time” to give their side of the story, and other senators are being allowed to freely air their views, Carignan said outside the chamber.

So, “if somebody thinks we don’t have due process here, sorry, but we have very good due process.”

But as debate dragged on until just before midnight, Wallin made a surprise, last-minute intervention to challenge Carignan’s assertion. She argued that due process means a fair hearing before an open-minded jury, not a highly charged debate in the Senate in which she’s entitled to speak for 15 or 20 minutes and ask the occasional question of other senators.

The debate is scheduled to resume Friday morning, a day the Senate does not ordinarily sit.


Wallin, Duffy, Brazeau and the latest on the Senate scandals

  1. How come you never mention the liberal senator who is also being investigated?
    The press in this country no longer reports the facts, they are too busy trying to create the news, no frigging wonder no one believes anything anymore.

    • Because this mess is about the three Conservative Senators still sitting as Senators in the Senate. Mac Harb has resigned and is no longer a Senator. Harper is trying to throw his three Conservative partisan party hacks, which he appointed, under the bus because their usefulness to Harper and the Conservatives has gone past their best before date and now seem to be an embarrassment to him and the Conservatives right before their convention. If no one every heard about Nigel Wright and the $90K party payout for Duffy’s expenses then Harper would NOT now be trying to get Duffy turfed from the Senate. In otherwords as long as no one found out Harper and the Conservatives would have paid Duffy’s $90K and there were no questions asked, then there was no harm, no fowl, nothing to see here, move along! Harper, the hypocrite!

      Try and stay focused. This article is about what the Senate will do with the three sitting Conservative Senators that Harper appointed!

  2. If I abused my position of trust with an employer and continually erred on the side of what benefited me at the expense of my employer, my employer wouldn’t take this to court, I would be fired. Senators are supposedly the brightest of those that are put in a position of trust and should be held to a higher standard. I personally don’t believe Canadians need the Senate and if there is to be one, it should be an elected position. The irony here is that Harper campaigned on an elected Senate and when in power, went with the status quo and appointed these very people that are at the heart of this scandal.

    • And if your employer acted wrongfully you would go to Court for wrongful dismissal. In this case the employee is being summarily fired without an honest process to defend their actions. I am not supporting nor defending any of them but it makes my gut churn to see frontier justice.

  3. I do not in any way defend the apparent actions of the three Senators. Having said that the current path to punishment is repugnant to me. Each of the three should be dealt with individually, they should have the right to a form of due process where they can face each specific accusation and defend themselves. What we have proposed by the Conservative Senate leadership is frontier justice. “Give them a fair trial and then hang them.” This is Harper as sheriff, judge and jury carrying out a foregone decision.

    • Further, the Seante is an independent body. Harper, the Federal Government leader, the PM, has nothing to do woth the Senate. They have their own processes and procedures, They have access to all kinds of legal advice of their own. The Harper Conservatives have no say in what should, could, or might be done with sitting members of the Senate. For some reason Harper feels he has to defend Duffy (before) and yet wants Duffy ejected from the Senate (now). Harper has nothing to say about it and should get his nose out of the Senate internal disciplinary actions. Why Harper seems to think he can control the Senate! He wants to suggest what they should do to his own appointed party hacks, and manipulate what the Senate does or doesn’t discuss or add to or change any of Harper’s Conservative legislation beore they (the Senate) convert it to a law! Almost like he wants to be the dictator of Canada or something!

  4. Harper and the Federal Conservatives have nothing to say about what the Senate should do or how it should proceed. The Senate is an independent body. It is not part of the Federal ruling governing party or any Federal party for that matter. They have their own process and procedures. The Senate represents the Provinces and Territories which is why when Harper recommended Duffy with Duffy NOT declaring PEI as his principle residence (yes he owned a cottage) Harper was effectively willfully ignoring the law ffor Senate recommendations and appointments. The PM should NOT be the one originating the recommended name to the GG of whom should be appointed to the Senate. That name should originate from the Province or Territory the Senate appointment is supposed to represent. If that were the process the PM followed then Harper would not be in this mess because the person recommended for Senate would have been vetted by the Province or Terriroty, the person would not be beholding to the PM for the recommendation, the PM would not have any hooks into the appointee so would not have to try and defend their action nor try and throw them under the bus as Harper is trying to do now with Duffy and the other two.