Information & Ethics committee  It's also totally irrelevant. If he had paid, there would be no issue. If he accepts it from a friend, it's also okay.

Information & Ethics committee  What you're talking about now is sponsored travel by MPs. You have a code of conduct for MPs that specifically accepts sponsored travel. It provides for it. It says, “...a member may accept, for the member and guests of the member, sponsored travel that arises from or relates to his or her position.”

Information & Ethics committee  Again, any consultations that the members of Parliament or elected office-holders have with us are confidential. If he wants to disclose that he talked to us, it's up to him; we would not disclose it.

Information & Ethics committee  I just read you the provisions of the law. I give advice. I give advice, and when asked questions about conflict, we give the answer. The office-holder can describe that advice in whichever way he wants to refer to it. In this case, they called it “pre-clearance”. That's not a term I would have used.

Information & Ethics committee  As you know, it's in the public domain that he consulted us and we advised him.

Information & Ethics committee  No, I cannot. As I pointed out, it's confidential. I'm not responsible for the spokesman of the Prime Minister and the way he characterizes our interaction. I can only tell you what happened: They consulted us: we gave advice; they went to Jamaica. If it had not been an acceptable gift, it would have had to be reported on our website.

Information & Ethics committee  As I mentioned, we verify allegations of friendship. We do our research, and the fact is that it was disclosed publicly by the Prime Minister. What we found is coincident with the fact that this is a true friend who has no relations with the Government of Canada.

Information & Ethics committee  First of all, I don't answer hypothetical questions, so let's forget that. What you're trying to get at is really whether it has to be the friend himself who is giving that gift or whether it could be an entity that the friend controls. Frankly, it makes no difference if the friend didn't have control over the entity that provided it.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope the microphone is working now. We had problems the last time.

Information & Ethics committee  Okay. 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.

Information & Ethics committee  At this time, we don’t have any resource problems. Without being excessive, our resources are adequate to do our jobs. As I said earlier, my priority is that the application of the Conflict of Interest Act be truly focused on its purpose, that is, avoiding conflicts of interest, and that it be applied in a practical way, not automatically.

Information & Ethics committee  I can only do what the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons allow me to do. Do I like the situation your colleague mentioned? No, not at all. However, as I said, I don't know the details. This is the first time I've heard these facts.

Information & Ethics committee  Certain things are ongoing. For instance, a perfect example is bringing in a new and better informatics system. First of all, we can't do it ourselves, because we're part of the House of Commons, so we have to work for them, etc. It has to be something that is compatible with their system.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes. Having seen introductions of new technology several times over my career, I think that's the most important part—training people so that they understand it, feel comfortable with it and can overcome the internal resistance that they'll have to change. They say, “I always did it this way.

Information & Ethics committee  There's also a bit of a culture change. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, both on September 18 and today, I think it's clear that it's not just the application of the act and mechanically making sure that everything...but keeping the overall purpose in mind. What are we trying to do?