BRAZEAU TOLD TO APOLOGIZE
Hints of compromise on Wallin, Brazeau
Patrick Brazeau, one of three senators facing suspension without pay for his expense claims, says he was offered a “backroom deal” to apologize to the chamber in exchange for a lesser penalty. While he was angry about the offer, saying he had done nothing wrong in the first place, Tory House leader Claude Carignan says his proposal to Brazeau was above board.
OTTAWA — The Senate is bracing for a final debate on the fate of three disgraced members next week after the Conservative majority in the red chamber dropped hints Friday that it may be prepared to compromise on the fate of senators Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau — though not on the punishment it wants to mete out to Mike Duffy.
The shift in tone comes amid increasing concern from some Conservatives over a plan to suspend the three without pay or privileges over their questionable expense claims.
A number of developments marked the emotional debate Friday:
Sen. Patrick Brazeau told the Senate he was offered a “backroom deal” by government Senate leader Claude Carignan, who, he said, suggested he apologize in the chamber for his spending offences in exchange for a more lenient sanction. Carignan denied the allegation, suggesting Brazeau had misunderstood.
Wallin released documents she said helped show a conspiracy among high-ranking Conservatives to undermine her reputation through targeted leaks of confidential information and statements.
At Wallin’s prodding, the Senate agreed to release transcripts from a secret meeting of a Senate committee that oversaw the audits earlier this year of each of the three senators.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper did a cross-country radio interview blitz to reinforce his message that he did not know about a secret deal to help repay Duffy’s expenses.
An Alberta Conservative MP, Peter Goldring, argued the move to punish the three senators in the absence of a criminal conviction was wrong and unconstitutional, and suggested the Governor General intervene.
Rising opposition inside Tory Senate ranks to the proposed suspension of Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy has reached a level where some Conservative Senate insiders feel there could be enough defectors that the opposition senators could actually gut the government’s current motions of punishment. There is talk of ways to soften the sanction for Wallin and Brazeau, though not for Duffy.
Thursday, Sen. Don Plett, a former president of the Conservative party, told the Sen- ate that he wouldn’t support the motions for the suspensions put forward by Carignan. Other Conservatives ready to vote against the motions include Hugh Segal and Don Meredith.
Brazeau said that the possibility of a reduced sentence from the Senate came in the form of a conversation between him and Senate House leader Carignan Friday morning.
“I was essentially offered a backroom deal,” Brazeau told stunned senators. “The backroom deal was that if I stood in this chamber, apologized to Canadians and took responsibility for my actions, that my punishment would be lesser than what is being proposed.”
Brazeau has been adamant that he has done nothing wrong, and has demanded an open hearing into an audit of his expense claims.
Carignan confirmed they had spoken, but told reporters he was trying to give Brazeau advice on his options, since the latter did not have a lot of experience with Senate procedure.
He said he had suggested Brazeau introduce an amendment with an apology. “It’s not a backroom deal,” Carignan said.
But Carignan noted he was open to amendments from anyone on his motion to suspend the senators, though he would not consider a suspension with pay, as he considered that to be a “gift” to the three senators in question.
“I told him to propose (an amendment) in public, in the chamber, not in the back of the room,” said Carignan. “It was a difficult week. We worked hard. I think I slept four hours last night, and we tried to find a solution so that Canadians would respect and accept the sanctions.”
“As difficult and as emotionally overwrought as this process is for all of us, we are trying to find a common ground in respect to the misconduct that has been done by three of our colleagues,” Conservative Sen. Daniel Lang told the Senate.
“Having listened and listened for a number of days here, I was one of those members talking to the government leader to say that I honestly believe that Sen. Brazeau’s motion, and what we’re asking in that motion, must be reviewed and looked at very seriously because of what I’ve heard thus far in the debate.”
The statements by Brazeau heightened the supercharged air of unaccustomed drama and emotion that has pervaded the Senate all week.
Wallin wouldn’t comment on whether she was offered any sort of a deal.
“I can only hear what is said in the chamber. I’m waiting for my colleagues to consider this,” she said. “I hope everybody takes a few days and thinks this through.”
When they return Monday, senators face a government move to fast-track a final vote on all the motions — which strip each of the three senators of all but their titles — a sign, critics said, that the Harper government wants this chapter of the Senate scandal to disappear quickly. The Conservative party holds a convention at the end of next week.
“They want to sweep this whole affair under the carpet. They want to get rid of it in advance of their party convention next weekend,” said Liberal Senate leader James Cowan.
“This whole process has blown up in their faces and they want it shut down as quickly as possible.”
Even Wallin questioned the use of the “procedural hammer” to close debate. She argued it would deny her right to a fair hearing.
“Due process is not possible in this chamber, where it seems a majority wants to put my head on a platter,” Wallin told the Senate.
At Wallin’s prodding, the Senate decided that the transcripts from two August meetings of the internal economy committee would be made public as early as Monday, providing a glimpse into what Wallin said to that committee and what auditors said in return. The two meetings, on Aug. 12 and 13, were dedicated to finalizing a critical audit of Wallin’s travel expenses.
Wallin contends she has not had a proper opportunity to present a full explanation of how she documented her travel and spent taxpayers’ money.