Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 17th, 2024

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Yes, I'm on English, and I'm not hearing the interpretation. There was something very brief in the background. It's like it's picking up another microphone, but it is the floor audio that I'm hearing despite being on English here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Our indication in the room is that the interpretation is working. I'm not sure what the problem is on your end, but what we can do is maybe get a technician to give Mr.—

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

If they would like to give me a call, I'll just go back on mute and we'll sort it out.

It's an important conversation, and I want to make sure that I'm fully following it. My French is a work-in-progress. I just want to make sure that we're plugged in.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. I want to make sure that you're following it, as well, Mr. Aldag.

I apologize, Mr. Gourde.

We will suspend the meeting for a few moments while we correct Mr. Aldag's issue.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

No problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It will only take a minute. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are back. We believe we have the technical issue with the interpretation fixed.

We will now resume the discussion.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor on the motion.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will come back to the motion and the concerns I had about the Prime Minister's trip when, before the holiday season, I learned through the media that one night at that luxury villa in Jamaica cost $9,300 and that the Prime Minister would be staying there for eight nights in a row. In total, this represents a cost of $84,000. However, as we know very well, the median family income in Canada is about $70,000 a year. So this trip represents a lot of money, in our opinion.

Then there's something else that I found worrisome.

Just before Christmas, on December 22, the Prime Minister's Office sent out a message that the Prime Minister's family was willing to pay for this trip. That implied that there was a way to remedy the situation.

Over the holidays, Canadians no doubt talked about the Prime Minister's trip. Some defended the Prime Minister by saying that he was going to pay for his trip after all.

Right after the holidays, another message from the Prime Minister's Office informed us that he and his family would not be paying for their trip because the luxury villa they stayed at belonged to friends. The villa is no doubt rented out to others, so that's probably how the media found out what the cost per night was. However, according to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we're not allowed to receive gifts of that kind. Even if it's free, the value of the gift must be determined. In this case, it's well above the maximum value permitted for a gift, which is $40.

After January 4, another message from the Prime Minister's Office, dated January 10, implied that the Prime Minister's family had stayed at a friend's principal residence.

So we see the messages changing. It's as if they are trying to exonerate themselves and get out of their conflict of interest and ethics obligations. The new Leader of the Government in the House of Commons puts the blame on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who apparently approved the Prime Minister's trip. However, the commissioner seems to be saying that it's not his job to approve or not approve such a trip.

Put all those events together, and our impression is that the Prime Minister is taking Canadians for a ride, if you will pardon the travel pun. That's the situation we're in. This isn't the first time the Prime Minister has run into trouble with respect to his travels during the holiday season.

We don't want to stop the Prime Minister from taking a vacation; he probably needs a vacation, just like everyone else. However, when vacations come as gifts of this magnitude, many things can be suspected.

I will therefore support my colleague Mr. Barrett's motion. It's important that the committee hear from the commissioner so he can make some clarifications. Did he or didn't he sign off on it? Can he or can't he authorize something like this? It would also be interesting to find out how the conversation went between the two parties. We can't shirk our legal responsibilities by putting the blame on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

It's important that we pass this motion. I hope that all my colleagues on the committee will support it and help us keep moving in that direction. I'd like to thank them in advance.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

We will continue the debate on the motion. Next up is Ms. Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would like to wish everyone a happy new year and a productive year ahead. I know that we have our work cut out for us on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I'm eager to begin the studies we decided on before the holidays, but for the time being, we're discussing the subject raised this morning.

It's important that we take the opportunity Mr. Barrett's motion provides to ask the commissioner to come and explain to us the rules governing travel in the Conflict of Interest Act. As my colleague Ms. Khalid pointed out, this is a democratic institution, so we need to make sure we're following the rules.

It's also important to note that the Prime Minister was travelling with a friend. It wasn't a trip with a Hungarian think tank, for example, as my colleague mentioned earlier. I think the commissioner would have a lot to say about some other members choosing to take a trip with a Hungarian think tank. However, we're talking about a trip with a friend. So I think my colleagues have clearly understood the explanations provided.

Mr. Barrett's motion asks that we hear from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for one meeting, if I understood correctly. More specifically, it would be to ask him questions about the travel rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act, in order to better understand the situation. In my opinion, that would be the most useful thing for the committee.

I'd therefore like to move an amendment, so that the motion requests that the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear for one meeting regarding the travel rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Could you say the amendment again, please?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Would you prefer that I say it in French or in English?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Say it again in French, if you like.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Okay.

I move that the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear for one meeting regarding the travel rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Fortier.

Give me a moment to consult with the clerk on your proposed amendment.

Madame Fortier, this is where I need clarification. The amendment itself is not clear. Are you asking for an additional meeting for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to come in and discuss this issue, or are you amending it to replace what Mr. Barrett has presented?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the reason why we would call the commissioner to appear, which is to discuss the travel rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act. So we would remove the part about the trip to Jamaica. The amendment also seeks to specify that it would be for one meeting, since that was not in Mr. Barrett's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The difficulty with that is that it substantially changes Mr. Barrett's motion. The difficulty I have with that is that the motion Mr. Barrett has presented is very specific to the Jamaica trip. Your motion would substantially change that.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We would keep “That the Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear” and add “for one meeting regarding the rules for travel in the Conflict of Interest Act”, so we would take out the words “at the earliest opportunity regarding the Prime Minister's vacation to Jamaica” and replace them with “for one meeting regarding the rules for travel”—which is a definition of vacationing—“in the Conflict of Interest Act.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just give me a second, if you don't mind.

Thank you. I just needed some clarification, because it is a substantive amendment to Mr. Barrett's motion. Mr. Barrett's motion is specific to the trip to Jamaica. The purpose of this meeting today as it relates to the request by the members is for the trip to Jamaica. Are you suggesting, then...?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I don't necessarily agree with you, Mr. Chair. We're talking about the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We all want to meet with him. I think we can agree on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

My question to you, then—and this is where I need clarification—is this: Are you suggesting that all questions would be open if the interim commissioner came before the committee, including the trip to Jamaica, or are you saying that that's...?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We're talking about travel rules, so it seems to me that includes trips of all kinds taken by members, including the Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I'm going to allow the amendment. The amendment is on the floor. Again, I needed clarification. We're dealing specifically with the trip to Jamaica today in the motion that was presented. If, when we come back, we have this one meeting with the commissioner and all trips are open, all sponsored travel, including travel with—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It would be travel under the act. We would add the act in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to allow the amendment, so we're now debating the amendment moved by Madame Fortier.

Is there any discussion on this? I see Mr. Villemure.

I know you had your hand up first to speak to Mr. Barrett's motion. Do you want to speak to the amendment now, or do you want to speak to the motion later?