Evidence of meeting #86 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was friend.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I got an awful lot of that information from my documentary evidence on the first one, so it wasn't necessary for me to find that out.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
It's interesting as all get-out, but it's not important for the purposes of the decision.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's interesting. On an occasion of an MP asking for a gift or being offered a gift, you make no distinction on that.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, to go back to the average Canadian watching this, if a politician was out there asking for stuff, as opposed to being offered, motivation becomes an interesting thing.
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but it didn't matter here. There was no need to get into details that I didn't need.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Mr. Cullen. It seemed short because it was. It was only three minutes, but we'll be coming back.
We're going to suspend again for five minutes. We'll see you back in five minutes.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, everybody. We'll call the meeting back to order.
The structure for the second half of our meeting will be seven minutes for each party, starting off with Mr. Erskine-Smith.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks very much. I may not take the full seven minutes, but we'll see.
You've talked about an objective reading of “reasonably be seen to have been given to influence”.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You talked about an objective interpretation of the definition of “reasonably be seen to have been given to influence”. I think you said that you took the Prime Minister at his word. In reading your report, we see what the Aga Khan states:
In his written submissions, the Aga Khan described this invitation as an expression of the personal relationship between Mr. Trudeau and his family and the Aga Khan and his family, adding that he and his family have extended such standing invitations to a few close friends.
I wonder how that statement was used and/or relied upon in your objective interpretation of “reasonably be seen to have been given to influence”.
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, you know, I did note in my report that there were quite a few people who got invited to the Aga Khan's island—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
It says a “standing invitation”, though, which he extended to only “a few close friends”, according to his written testimony.
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, that's what he said.
Yes. You know, what can I...? It seems to me that I've put out all the facts.
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I've put out all the circumstances. The fact of the matter is that these invitations resumed when the Prime Minister was in a position of power, either as the leader or as the Prime Minister.
I don't know.... The facts are all there, and—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Sure.
Also, you didn't find in the course of your report that the Prime Minister acted to further the private interests of the Aga Khan.
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I didn't find that he took any decision, but he did take part in some discussions.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
In looking into recommendations that this committee might make in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act more generally, you've suggested—not in your 2013 recommendations, but today—perhaps removing the “friend” exception from the act. Do you think that's preferable to setting out certain indicia in the act of what a friend is?