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.
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
I think there were two or three different instances, and the circumstances were different. Sometimes he was there in his official capacity, sometimes he was there when things were being discussed, and sometimes he was there—I don't know—out of courtesy because they were wanting to meet the leaders.
Every case when there was a meeting was different, so you have to figure out which one you're talking about.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, but what was not different was that in all of those cases he was still the Prime Minister.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
He was in the previous ones, but in the meetings that followed—
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
There was one when he was a member, but there were no consequences.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, but even as a member of Parliament, as leader of a federal party, and then as Prime Minister, I just don't imagine a scenario in which I say, “I'm taking that elected hat off and I'm just here hanging out with a buddy.” If you follow that line of logic, you could be popping hats off and on as almost a convenient way to—
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
It depends. If you're meeting with an old school buddy who has nothing to do with anything the government's doing—
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But if I'm meeting with someone who does have something to do with what the government is doing, $330 million—
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure I am. If my old school buddy is also someone who lobbies the government and has—
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You'd think so, yes. You'd better be careful.
I got the sense from your original testimony that your definition of friendship is actually quite broad.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
No. It depends. It's a circumstantial thing as well. A friend is probably the broadest.... I have had several cases on friendships. There was one guy who was exonerated because I really didn't think he was a friend. He was just someone who liked to drop a name. You just have to look at each case and figure out what you're doing.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
There will be more time, I'm sure.
Next up, for seven minutes, is Mr. Saini.
January 10th, 2018 / 11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Good morning, Commissioner. I will refer to you as “Commissioner” because I still think of you as the commissioner.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Well, okay, former commissioner.
Anyway, I want to thank you very much for coming. I know that you noted to the press that this report almost killed you and that you needed some rest afterward.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm glad that you're here in full health. As a pharmacist, if there's anything I can offer for your health, I would be more than happy to do that.
11:30 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I have a couple of specific questions regarding the report and a couple of general questions. As a new MP, I would like to explore the question of friendship a little bit more broadly.
Referring to page 30 of your report, you lay out the test that must be applied when determining whether a breach of section 14 of the members' code has taken place. If I understand it, this test is used to determine whether a gift may be seen to have influence. Now, you determined that there was no contravention of section 14.