:
Good morning. I call the meeting to order.
[Translation]
Welcome to meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, the committee is meeting today for a briefing session with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.
[Translation]
I would like to remind all members not to put their earpieces next to the microphones, as it causes feedback and potential injury to our interpreters.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses for today.
[English]
First, from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, I welcome Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, who is the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I would also like to welcome again Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, who is the director, advisory and compliance.
Welcome again, sir, to the committee. You have five minutes to address the committee, and we'll follow that with questions by members.
Go ahead, sir.
Thank you for inviting me to answer your questions about the rules for gifts including vacations and travel under the Conflict of Interest Act.
With me is Lyne Robinson‑Dalpé, director of advisory and compliance at the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
As you all appreciate, the Conflict of Interest Act is guided by four principles.
[English]
The first principle is disclosure. Upon appointment under the act, all reporting public office holders must disclose within 60 days their assets and other relevant information to the commissioner. This forms the basis for the compliance process and will be the source of ongoing conversations throughout the appointment of a public office holder.
The second principle is advice. As part of the compliance process, the commissioner gives confidential advice as to what measures are required to ensure compliance. These measures may vary, but can include public disclosure, divestment, recusal or even a conflict of interest screen.
During the tenure of the public office holders, open discussions and disclosures allow the office to help manage conflicts of interest and safeguard public confidence.
[Translation]
The third principle is confidentiality.
All interactions with the commissioner are confidential and can only be released by the public office holder, not by me.
The confidentiality provision allows public office holders to fully disclose their situation and enables the commissioner to make a decision based upon all relevant facts.
[English]
The fourth principle is transparency. Transparency is a keystone for engendering public confidence. The act strikes a balance between maximum transparency and confidentiality to protect the privacy of public office holders. Redacted versions of relevant disclosures of recusals, gifts or results of investigations are published on the office's website. The office's public registry is the most frequently accessed part of our website.
[Translation]
Let's move on now to the matter at hand, which is the Prime Minister's recent trip to Jamaica, which sparked your request for this information meeting about the rules regarding gifts, including vacations and travel.
[English]
The act defines gifts in subsection 11(1) as follows:
No public office holder or member of his or her family shall accept any gift or other advantage, including from a trust, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty or function.
Clearly, the granting of hospitality—namely, allowing somebody to use a property without charge—is a gift. However, there is an exception.
[Translation]
However, there is an exception for acceptable gifts in paragraph 11(2)(b), which reads as follows:
11(2) … a public office holder or member of his or her family may accept a gift or other advantage
(b) that is given by a relative or friend
[English]
Now let's look at the facts in this case. What's in the public domain? I shall try to be as forthright as possible with you, as far as the act allows.
The has stated that he—Mr. Green—is a friend of the family. He has been a friend for over 50 years. He has stayed at Mr. Green's property since he was a child. The Prime Minister has received gifts—one of hospitality—more than once from this friend. He has spoken publicly of this friendship and has sought advice from my office, both through my tenure and through the tenure of my predecessor.
While the act speaks of “advice”, the advice we give is really tantamount to a ruling. Let's not kid around: Public office holders always accept our advice. Advice is given to ensure public office holders are in compliance with the act; if they do not follow the advice, then there will be an investigation.
We have no role to pre-clear gifts from family and from friends under the act, nor do we approve travel destinations. However, we give advice as to whether a gift is acceptable or not. We work to verify the true depth of an asserted friendship. If someone is a friend, if they can offer a gift to a public officer in a personal context, then the gift does not need to be disclosed. The last point is important because subsection 25(5) of the act provides that:
If a reporting public office holder or a member of his or her family accepts...any gift or other advantage that has a value of $200 or more, other than one from a relative or friend, the reporting public officer holder shall, within 30 days after accepting the gift or other advantage, make a public declaration that provides sufficient detail to identify the gift or other advantage accepted, the donor and the circumstances under which it was accepted.
Now 30 days have passed since the disclosed that he went to Jamaica. Nothing has been published on our website. From the facts that I gave you and the provisions of the law, you can draw your own conclusions as to the advice that I gave and what happened.
I, under law, cannot give you any more, but I've tried to outline for you as clearly as possible the provisions of the law, the facts in the public domain and the situation. I'm bound by the confidentiality of the act, but I will try to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, sir, for your opening statement.
Before we begin with our round of questioning, let us note that we have the interim Ethics Commissioner, Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, here for two hours. In the past, what we've done is reset the clock at the top of the hour to allow Mr. Villemure and Mr. Green their additional time. Do I have the consensus of the committee to do the same today?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, good.
We're going to start with our first round of questioning. Mr. Barrett, you have six minutes. Go ahead, please.
:
I appreciate that, but let me be a bit more precise. It's not a question to me if they're friends. The question is, who gave the gift?
I'll give an example. If a prime minister is friends with, let's say, Ted Rogers, and if it's established and been ruled on by your office that a prime minister is friends with this individual, and if that designated public office holder then receives free wireless services from Rogers Communications Inc. in perpetuity as a gift from the friend, and the friend is not incurring the expense and the corporation is forgoing revenue, is that an acceptable gift from a friend?
If it is not, has your office been satisfied in this case that the gift was in fact paid for by Mr. Green and was not just revenue that was forgone by a company that Mr. Green has an interest in?
I ask because I don't see them the same way.
:
It's not a question of....
You are trying to get me into income tax issues here. That is not the issue at all. The issue is whether this gift, in any way, puts forward a situation in subsection 11(1), which I have pointed out, and I read it out to you. It's something “that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder”.
Is the effect here, under the complaint, that somebody gave a gift to the , who is his personal friend, that is likely to influence the behaviour of the Prime Minister? That's really the question we're looking at. Whether the gift was given by Mr. Green or by the company that he controls doesn't affect us. We know what the gift was, and it has been publicly disclosed.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
I would like to follow up on some of the questioning of Mr. Barrett.
I really appreciate, Commissioner, that you've said that if it had not been an acceptable gift, it would have been reported on our website in 30 days. It has been 30 days, and nothing has been reported.
I want to pick up on some of the issues that Mr. Barrett outlined in more of a contextual basis.
The last time you were here, we talked about the strange case of five Conservative MPs who took a lavish trip to London in the summer of 2023. Included in the expenses were $600 in bottles of champagne, as well as porterhouse steaks, chateaubriand and smoked salmon. It cost over $6,200 for one night out for dinner. These expenses also included a $360 Uber ride.
Their expenses and their travel were paid for by an organization that was created by one of the MPs, , who was on this trip with them, except that specific MPs' bills were paid by a Hungarian think tank.
At the time, you said that this would “seem to smell” and that you did not like that situation at all. The Lobbying Commissioner also said that this was an issue of concern. Do you still agree that this did not pass the smell test?
:
In your instance, the code for the House of Commons has to look at what the principles are. They have to “fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each member and in the House of Commons”.
The member would come, lay out the question, ask if it complies with subsection 2(b), which I just read out to you, and ask what the implications are, etc. We would give them advice and say it's up to them, but we would suggest they do A, B, C, or not D, or yes, you can do all of it, whatever the situation is. The member then proceeds as he or she sees fit.
Thank you for being with us again, Mr. von Finckenstein.
Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, you always come in good faith, which impresses me every time.
My questions will focus on the public interest.
Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, first of all, when was the last time the code in question was revised?
:
That's exactly the direction was I was going with my question. Yes, the code was drafted at a certain time, but the world is changing and so is the social context. If we don't want the code to become a dead tool, we have to keep it alive by updating it regularly.
I have always found it curious that over the years, the concept of friendship has so often been at the heart of discussions, whether with Ms. Dawson, Mr. Dion or you now. We often talk about Mr. Trudeau, but without personalizing the issue, the fact remains that friendship is still a basic element of society. It's not forbidden.
However, in 2024, even if it is permissible to give a gift to a friend—I heard you on that and that's perfectly fine—sometimes we're talking about amounts that may be shocking to people.
Should there be a maximum amount?
:
Thank you very much. I would like to welcome you both back.
As you know, I have a line of questioning that is often very rapid, and if I interject to bring my time back, it's certainly not personal. I do have some questions that may feel personal at times. I'm going to put it to you that the questions are not intended that way.
I want to begin on the topic of sponsored travel. This was certainly an issue that I raised back in October in referencing the earlier testimony regarding , , , , and . For me, this committee can hopefully come to a recommendation to eliminate sponsored travel. I'm going to state that.
There's ambiguity on the topic of what is material and what is not material, what is accepted, what is not accepted, who is funding what, what is being done indirectly that can't be done directly, and I reference our ongoing conversations around foreign interference and the impacts that it has on our democracy. When I hear you talk about what is lavish in terms of material, I'm from Hamilton Centre and I would put it to you that $3,400 for champagne and wine is lavish and $1,000 for a steak dinner is lavish, and I think it's completely unacceptable in the context of the work that we do.
What I would propose to this committee right off the bat, for those who are interested in actually changing the page on these ongoing sagas of what I think are scandals that take away from the legitimacy of our democracy, is the elimination of sponsored travel and its replacement with two international travel credits on our MOB, free of any kind of idea of influence, whether foreign, corporate, or otherwise. This would allow us to do our work in international diplomacy in a clear and transparent way.
On the topic of clarity and transparency, I've heard you refer to the confidential nature of the consultations, Mr. von Finckenstein. Do you believe that we could contemplate at this committee a process that is more transparent, perhaps one that would include, for the purpose of the public good, a public disclosure of requests to your office on the content of people's inquiries, or is it your opinion that confidentiality is a cornerstone of your office and is required in order for you to be able to do your work correctly?
:
I would put to you an adage of my old football coach: “Chances are, if you have ask, you ought not to be doing it.”
As complicated as things are, the point is that we're in positions of trust to make decisions that could be complicated by externalities, like influence. We're dealing with that right now in a very significant way with foreign interference.
In my mind, there ought to be a way to consider disclosures that might not have the degree of information that you're suggesting but would give the public an understanding of the types of muddied relationships that tend to happen on the Hill. I think about the revolving door that happens between the PMO and lobby groups, and the relationships that happen there. We just referenced sponsored travel.
You know, there's a lot of work at this committee that I don't enjoy. I don't enjoy the political mud-throwing and muckraking that happens here, or the full outrage, quite frankly. I say that because, as much as my Conservative friends want to make this an issue here today, I would put to you that an $80,000 trip is an issue for my constituents in Hamilton Centre, but let's think about Stephen Harper's $45,000 trip to a baseball game and Broadway. These things happen.
My question to the witnesses, through you, Mr. Chair, is this: In relation to substantively changing the code, what would your recommendations be to avoid our having to do this Groundhog Day of scandal—whether it's Liberals, Conservatives or what have you—and finally put an end to it and provide clarity to a code that would provide an equal weight of what is legal and ethical?
I would put to you that the code, as it's written now, provides legal opportunity and legal cover through your advice. It's certainly not ethical, at least not on the face of it.
In your opinion, what are some ways for us to gain some kind of value out of this study, beyond the media circus, and actually improve the legislation?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. von Finckenstein, thank you very much for your answers.
The dates are very important, because a number of statements made by the and the Prime Minister's Office changed along the way.
On December 22, the Prime Minister's Office said that the Trudeau family would cover the cost of their stay. On January 4, the office changed that to say that the Trudeau family stayed at a facility owned by a family friend for free. On January 10, according to the most recent version of events revealed by the Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister and his family stayed with family friends for free.
So we can see that the statements made by the Prime Minister's Office have changed over the weeks.
Did you speak to or participate in the discussions with the Prime Minister about this $84,000 Jamaica trip?
Thank you, Commissioner and Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, for coming out today.
Just to close the matter on the 's trip, I think you said you give advice. He was preadvised. We understand that. The advice you give is “tantamount to a ruling”, and members always follow the advice you give. You mentioned that. If it had not been acceptable, it would have been reported in 30 days. It's been 30 days, and nothing has been reported on your website, and you've indicated that.
Do you believe this matter is closed?
:
You're quite right that there is no value stated in the act, and it doesn't come into play.
What I discussed with Mr. Villemure was a really exceptional circumstance. Would you do something if you couldn't use it? There has to be a limit. There has to be a societal limit, an ethical limit of how far you can go.
I said, “Well, there isn't one”, but if it was an absolutely extraordinary gift—like a million-dollar car or something like this—what I can always say is that this is so unusual that I have trouble accepting that really good friends give each other million-dollar gifts. Let's have an investigation. Let's have some more information in here, with sworn statements, etc.
It may be that it was was gift, and we will say, “Yes, it was a gift. Never mind”, or maybe it said that it was characterized as a gift, but there was more to it. However, that is an exception and has never happened, and hopefully it never will.
However, just in order to answer forthrightly Mr. Villemure's question, I would say that in such a case I think I would probably look into it further.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance today.
I'm going to start by offering a comment about the level of hypocrisy that I've heard from some of the Liberal and NDP members. It reminds me of the proverb that those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
In particular, Ms. Iqra Khalid accepted sponsored travel in 2017 to the United Arab Emirates, and the value was $8,518. The leader of the NDP, , and three staff, went to Las Vegas, paid for by United Steelworkers, and the value totalled $7,919. In November 2022, Mr. Singh and two staff travelled to Germany for just under $28,000. One can only imagine the drink and the food that was consumed at those locations. I just throw that out for commentary.
Going back to you, sir, you indicated that generally there's no value in terms of gifts from a friend that would cause you to be concerned, save and except if the trip was truly lavish—your words—or “extraordinary”, or different or truly “unusual”, such that an investigation could launch.
I want to talk about the estate that and his family stayed at. It's called the Frankfort suite. This location has units ranging from $700 to $7,000 a night U.S. Far be it for the Prime Minister to actually care about the taxpayer and stay at a unit at $700 a night; he had to go to the maximum at $7,000 a night.
The website says:
Originally a fortified residence dating back to the 17th century, Frankfort is perhaps the most desirable north coast villa in Jamaica.
The property offers six en suite bedrooms. Three bedrooms are located in the main building and three in the beach-side villa known as the “School house”. The main house and School house overlook a spectacular three hundred foot, powdery white sand beach, widely hailed as the best stretch of private beach in Jamaica. The modern luxurious swimming pool overlooks—
Chair, could we have some decorum, please, from Ms. Khalid? She's laughing.
I'm going to back up in light of how I was rudely interrupted by colleagues.
The main house and School house overlook a spectacular three hundred foot, powdery white sand beach, widely hailed as the best stretch of private beach in Jamaica. The modern luxurious swimming pool overlooks the ocean and eight person hot tub. A large gazebo sits adjacent to the swimming pool which comfortably seats twelve for outdoor dining.
This 5,082sqft...villa is within it's own private compound comprised of two buildings.
Now let's talk about amenities. It sleeps 12 people. There is an eight-person jacuzzi and a beachfront, as I mentioned. It is fully staffed, sir, with butlers, a cook, gardener, housekeepers and a laundress. There is golf and a spa on site.
That doesn't include, sir, the food, entertainment and recreational activities that probably came at an additional cost. Certainly, this is probably not an all-inclusive vacation. A location like that probably has an additional amount that one would have to pay. We don't know what that amount is. You, sir, probably don't know what that amount is.
You don't think that all of those circumstances, sir, raise it to the level of something that is extremely lavish, extraordinary and unusual?
I can tell you, notwithstanding what the had to say to Marieke Walsh from The Globe and Mail, and doubled and tripled down on in the House and to other reporters, that this wasn't a vacation that was shared by other ordinary Canadians over the Christmas break. Canadians have been suffering with affordability issues caused by this particular Liberal government after eight years of its mismanagement and waste.
In those circumstances, Canadians view this as absolutely truly extravagant and luxurious. In those circumstances, sir, does not the public opinion weigh in on your particular analysis?
I get the impression that the issue—
I want to thank you both for being here today.
On a point of clarification, I just looked at Ms. Khalid's travel claim for that trip. Her meals were $200 for her trip, which is quite a difference from the meals for the Conservative MPs who went to the U.K. The five of them spent what I would call truly lavishly, with a $6,200 dinner and a $600 bottle of champagne. Her meals for her whole trip didn't even cover the cost of one bottle of champagne.
On that, Conservative MP 's trip was sponsored by the Danube Institute. It's a right-wing Hungarian think tank. I did a quick check of their Twitter feed; they reposted one tweet that said, “Budapest is China's greatest friend within the EU....” There's another one that says, “Note that South Africa is undergoing a slow, steady, semi-genocidal purification of its white citizens.” This is the organization that paid for 's travel to the U.K. At their $6,200 dinner, we don't know if there was lobbying of the MPs by this organization.
I completely agree with my colleague Mr. Green about putting sponsored travel onto the members' office budgets, but my concern is with the changing of the sponsored travel rules. Now sponsored travel can only be done by organizations that are not lobbying Canadian MPs. I'm quite concerned about foreign interference coming in here. You're going to have foreign entities like the Danube Institute sponsoring Canadian MPs not just as a way to get around our sponsored travel rules but also as a way to influence Canadian elected officials.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the dangers of foreign interference when it comes to these types of travel.
:
Well, I don't think it would.
A bit of a parallel is solicitor-client privilege. If you come to me as a solicitor, I defend you. Let's say you have been charged with something. Everything you tell me is in confidence. I will actually know the unvarnished truth about what happened. I will then try to use that knowledge to defend you.
It's the same thing here. You come and say, “This is my situation.” You are confronting this issue or this thing is starting to be a political problem or a financial problem, and you say, “What do I do?” I tell you the provisions of the act related to what you can do and what you can't do. You then do what you feel.
You don't have to take my advice. Usually you do, because it's the safest plan. If you think I am overly cautious or that this is something you can weather and you want go ahead, that's your decision, but the system wouldn't work unless you have this cornerstone whereby you and I exchange everything. You tell me the truth, and I will give you the honest opinion of how to handle it.
:
Let's start off with your basic error: You're putting those two years together. We advise on the specific gifts in each year on its own. It's not cumulative and you can't add them up, so let's talk about the gift of this year. That's what we're talking about, the gift for this year.
I don't know what the value is. When I said a Ferrari, I said a million dollars, which you forgot. I specifically used that figure because it was so outlandish. What we have here is clearly a generous gift, but it's between people who are friends. I don't see why, just because they're well off, they can't exchange gifts. That's what they're doing here.
The Greens have come to Canada and they've stayed at Harrington Lake. They've travelled around the world, apparently. These are all public statements by the , not by me—
Mr. von Finckenstein and Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, thank you for your work and for being with us today.
I've had the privilege of talking to your advisors, and I really appreciate the work your office does.
You were very clear about several issues, and you seem to be saying the same thing over and over, so I'd like to keep exploring some other issues we've touched on.
A week or two ago, when we had an emergency meeting about this issue, one of my concerns was about Mr. Barrett's motion. The motion, which was rejected, was about the production of documents.
I'd like us to benefit from your knowledge and experience along with your opinion on confidentiality.
Opening that Pandora's box has consequences, of course, but I'd still like to know your opinion on the impact of these provisions on confidentiality in the Conflict of Interest Act and on your and your office's ability to do your work.
:
Of course, I read that criticism.
The Democracy Watch organization does not understand my position and how my office operates at all.
First of all, if there is no conflict of interest in a given case, that is none of our business. We look into cases where people want an investigation. If we find nothing to indicate a possible conflict of interest, we do not start an investigation. We had a total of eight cases like that.
Four of those cases were about Mr. Grewal, who was an MP, but who has not been for about five years. Why investigate someone who is not an MP? In the other cases, we conducted a preliminary analysis and determined there was not enough evidence to launch an investigation.
We are currently conducting two investigations, on Ms. Verschuren and Mr. Ouimet regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
They also talk about changes I made. What did I do?
First, I said that if a reporting public officeholder leaves a department, the limitation period before joining another department is not necessary. If you want to leave the position of Deputy Minister of Transport and now you want to work at the Department of Agriculture, that’s fine, congratulations. There is no conflict of interest. You know how departments work. I was told that was illegal and asked why I did it. I did it because there is no conflict of interest.
One of the other changes I made has to do with reporting public office holders’ controlled assets, which can be problematic. For 10 years, the maximum amount of controlled assets was set at $30,000. I said that because of inflation, we would double the maximum amount and set it at $60,000.
Finally, we once had a rule requiring people who worked part time for a Canada Energy Regulator committee to sell their shares in open-ended mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. Why? Where was the conflict of interest?
If a person has shares in an open-ended mutual fund, how could they be in a conflict of interest? I don’t know who created that rule. Now, if a person wants to have those kinds of shares, they can.
Those are the things I did that Democracy Watch considers very bad. I will not give them the pleasure of repeating all the qualifiers they used.
:
I'll try to ask the question differently from the way my friend from the Bloc asked it.
Under section 44 of the Conflict of Interest Act, the commissioner is required to examine a matter raised by a request from a parliamentarian “who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public office holder or former public officer holder has contravened the Act”, unless the commissioner determines that the request is either frivolous, vexatious or is made in bad faith.
I take from your testimony, and I'm going to use your inference, that you view this matter to be closed. With that being said, do you consider the request for the investigation into this to be frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith?
I'm just quoting the code.
With that being said, I think what we've discovered here is that many people, whether it's and his trip to the Bahamas under the Aga Khan...
I have to say this to you, Mr. Chair, and I do apologize, and I do apologize to my colleague MP Khalid, because I did make a comment that I think elicited her response earlier. When the context was described, I couldn't determine whether they were describing Stornaway or, worse, a plantation, which is more likely, given when it was built. I certainly hope the Prime Minister isn't spending his time in Jamaica at a former plantation, but I digress.
I think what has been determined is that when people get into these positions of power, they lose touch with the everyday Canadian. What I'm hearing from the testimony is that it's incumbent on us as MPs to create a higher standard, with clear definitions, recognizing that terms like “friends” are not clearly defined. There's too much ambiguity.
With that, and to ensure that we don't run out of time, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent for a motion, and if there is not, the members can take this to a vote.
I move:
That the committee send a letter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Board of Internal Economy with the following recommendation:
That the travel points system used by members of Parliament be amended to allow two special travel points to be used for international travel for parliamentary purposes, and that the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons be amended to explicitly ban sponsored travel.
If we can get one thing from this S.O. 106 request that resulted in this study, hopefully it would be that.
I'm going to seek unanimous consent. If not, then I would invite the members to go on the record about whether they support the gravy train or they don't.
I'm going to ask Mr. von Finckenstein to just hold for a second while we deal with this.
Madam Clerk, you've distributed this to the committee, so let's just hang on a second, please. Let me just read it.
In relation to what we're dealing with today, I'm going to allow the motion to be submitted by Mr. Green as written. Mr. Green has asked whether we have unanimous consent to approve the motion he has moved, so I'm going to seek—
:
That is absolutely accurate, Mr. Chair. This is for their consideration.
Obviously, this is a MOB situation, because travel credits come out of the central fund, but this would have to be duly studied and reported on.
What I'm asking this committee to do, Mr. Chair, is to move beyond the political ambulance chasing and start to provide a political legislative remedy to close the gaps on this situation. I'm not interested in coming back under another government and going back through the list of sponsored travel dating back to pre-Confederation. What I want to do is hopefully use the time here judiciously to ensure that we're actually providing legislative responses. We've heard them today. They've said that this is up to us, so let's do that now.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is a very simple motion that refers this matter to PROC and the Board of Internal Economy for legislative consideration. I'm not even suggesting that we have to be prescriptive, which is why I'm not interested in getting into unanimous consent around wordsmithing. I think if we send this as it is, we have identified the issue that has happened at this committee.
I'm putting this marker down because it's plausible that within the next 12 months, something like this can happen again. We need to do what we're tasked to do as a committee, which is review the issue. We've heard quite clearly in testimony where our current Conflict of Interest Act lies and where the sponsored travel gaps are. They are significant. On the sponsored travel issue, this is it.
We need to come back to the gifts, for sure, and have a clear position. I do believe that ethics potentially could be non-partisan. Potentially, we can find common ground to say that this needs to end. That's what I'm proposing here today.
Thank you.
We've had some discussion on this and some clarification on exactly what the motion proposes. Rather than a recorded vote, I'm going to go back to seeking consensus on this with the caveat, as Ms. Khalid pointed out, that committee members will be able to review and edit the letter if need be.
Do we have consensus on this?
I'm seeing nods from Mr. Barrett, Mr. Villemure, Mr. Green and Madame Fortier.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Green.
All right, I am going to go to—
:
I'm going back to the issue of sponsored travel.
Even though that motion has passed, I think it's important to note that the topic brought up around foreign interference is an important one. I'm going to actually put in abeyance my partisan attacks. I won't name names, but there are multiple records of people who have taken travel sponsored by organizations, and they're individuals who have no real track record. Some of these trips are so expensive that I'm led to wonder, as an average person from Hamilton Centre, how they pay for them.
Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, when you're reviewing these trips, are flags ever raised when it comes to things like foreign interference when it comes to the price tags attached to these trips, versus people's reasonable ability to pay?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I’ll be rather quick.
Mr. von Finckenstein, it is convenient for the Prime Minister’s Office or for a minister to use your name or your position as Ethics Commissioner to justify what seems to be indefensible in public. It’s enough to say a request was made of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who preapproved the trip. Some ministers are ready to say whatever it takes to defend their prime minister, who, by the way, was found guilty twice of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act.
We had a little exchange earlier about Mr. Steven MacKinnon’s statements. I went to check them; I can send you the audio clip if you want. In a press conference on January 8, Mr. MacKinnon said the following: "The Prime Minister followed all the rules; he spoke to the Ethics Commissioner to have his travel plans preapproved."
Is that correct?
I was a little confused. I listened to your earlier exchange with my colleague Michael Barrett about Ferraris. I’d like to try to understand it a bit better. The gift of a $200,000 Ferrari could trigger an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. However, when Mr. Barrett said that Mr. Trudeau’s successive holidays were the equivalent of about $200,000, you suddenly talked about a $1 million amount, easily achieved in the case of one Ferrari.
Mr. von Finckenstein, how can the public know where the limit is? What is acceptable? What is the required amount to trigger an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner when receiving a lavish gift, be it a car or a holiday in a luxury resort? Is it $200,000 or $1 million?
I heard you talk about it with my colleague earlier, and you lost me a little.
:
…according to the facts.
Mr. von Finckenstein, I have another question to ask you before wrapping up, because time is running out fast.
When you talked with my colleague earlier, you said that after analyzing a file, you give your legal opinion, but you can also provide a judgment.
It’s possible to judge the way a gift may be perceived. However, if you don’t speak directly with the Prime Minister or with members, how is it possible to give that bit of friendly advice?
Furthermore, was this type of advice provided to the Prime Minister’s Office about the Prime Minister’s Jamaican vacation?
:
I have a couple of things.
I have a question, Commissioner, about a couple of things I want to highlight, given that we're towards the end of this session today.
What I heard today was the commissioner confirming that the stayed with a friend with no connection to government. The commissioner is not investigating, and there's nothing new to investigate. The commissioner said the matter is closed.
I also found it interesting, as a number of folks talked about today, and you mentioned, that your advice is tantamount to a ruling. It certainly appears that a ruling was made by you and your office, which I appreciate.
The question I have is this: Can you reassure Canadians that your office is immune to political interference of any sort? I think that's an important question and an equally important answer, if we can get that from you.
:
Thank you, Commissioner.
I also want to say that what I like that came out of today's meeting was that we actually, as a committee, discussed some solutions. I want to thank MP Green for that in terms of doing a deeper dive with respect to a legislative response through, no doubt, vigorous debate and discussion.
For Canadians watching at home, I think that's what you want. You want the ability to decipher interesting political discussion, and in some cases political exchanges, but you want to look at solutions. I appreciate MP Green putting that forward and our passing that motion today.
Commissioner, I think it has been mentioned a couple of times, and I think you mentioned, that you will provide a written response with recommendations on how you can strengthen your office. I want to make it clear that this is something you're going to provide in some detail.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mike Kelloway: I'm going to give you something you haven't had today, Mr. Commissioner: the gift of time.
I appreciate that we've looked at this from a variety of perspectives, but at the end of the day, I think we have an end result in relation to the travel. What I think we've indicated as a committee is that we need ways to look at getting some latitude with respect to exercising the MOBs and having some oversight when it comes to international travel, not just for one political party but also for all political parties.
With that, I yield the floor.
:
That’s the hardest part.
I understand your need, and that of the public, to know what’s going on as soon as possible, but on the other hand, I don’t want to ruin people’s private lives. That is why we have provisions such as disclosure dates for certain facts and redacted documents, for instance.
As I told my colleagues and my staff, it’s necessary to be as transparent as possible under the Act. However, the legislation is clear. The centre of everything we do is confidentiality. A person who comes to consult us to get our opinion must be certain that everything they disclose will remain confidential.
That was spoken like a true ethicist. I know my friend Mr. Villemure had a very accomplished career prior to this and is certainly a value added to the committee.
I'm still looking at the gaps in the legislation.
I've heard time and again that the advice.... I want to make it clear. There was a reference to client-solicitor privilege, yet you've admitted, I think—I've taken this from your testimony, at least—that you're simply providing advice and are not quasi-judicial in terms of the way you investigate these matters outside of formal complaints, as we've learned today. You said it depends on whether or not a friend provides the gift, yet I'm referencing subsection 2(3) of the Conflict of Interest Act, where the term “friend” is not actually defined.
In your opinion, would this be a glaring oversight in legislation that again leads to too much ambiguity about whether somebody ought to be considered a friend or an interest?
:
I have to move on. I have one minute left.
This is on the issue of the communications from the and the Prime Minister's Office. I'm not asking about content. I'm asking about delivery.
Was it delivered via email, text, telephone or a memo? I believe your earlier evidence was there was perhaps a phone call. I don't know what the duration was, but can you clarify that, sir?
It is extremely important that the public understand what details were provided to you by the Prime Minister's Office. Please answer that.
That concludes our meeting for today.
Commissioner, I want to thank you for taking the time. I know it was on relatively short notice, but you made yourself available to the committee. I want to thank you for that.
[Translation]
Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, thank you for being here today.
Before I adjourn the meeting, Ms. Fortier has some bad news for us.
Ms. Fortier, I invite you to address the committee.
:
Thank you, Ms. Fortier.
[English]
Again, Commissioner, thank you on behalf of the committee and Canadians.
That concludes our meeting for today. Thank you to our clerk, our analysts, and our technicians.
We'll see you all Thursday, when the Privacy Commissioner will be here before the committee.
The meeting is adjourned.