Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Maybe I will recap it for you. I would love your input. If this was a scenario that was presented to you, what would you think about it?

Five Conservative MPs took a lavish trip to London in June. The MPs on the trip were John Williamson, Stephen Ellis, Philip Lawrence, Rosemarie Falk and Shannon Stubbs. Included in their expenses were $600 bottles of champagne, porterhouse steaks, chateaubriand and smoked salmon, which cost over $6,200 for one night out for dinner. The expenses also included a $360 Uber ride.

Now, 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 MP's bills were paid by a Hungarian think tank.

When you see a scenario like that, based on your expertise and your experience in your offices, what would be some of the flags you would raise?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

First of all, I don't answer hypothetical questions. Present me with facts and I'll make a ruling. Without that, I can't....

Obviously, the way you present them, it would seem to smell. As I say, it was your presentation; I don't know the actual facts, etc.

As my predecessor in title so rightly put it, the act specifically allows for sponsored travel, so if there's a situation, you have to compare the actual facts against the provisions of the law and make sure they have complied.

If this were to come up now, I would do exactly that. I would look at the facts and make sure that whatever provisions in the code that are pertinent to the situation have been complied with.

[Mario Dion]

I would add, Mr. Chair, that one other relevant consideration is that the office gets notified about sponsored travel only way after the fact. Usually we are not consulted. We learn months after the trip has been completed. We basically publish what was declared to us. We have no role in judging or in saying anything about sponsored travel, but we publish so that the political process can take over, as it is now.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Again, I'm actually quite surprised that neither of you have heard of this. The facts that I presented are not hypothetical. They are real, and this would have been presented to you in the case of sponsored travel. I will leave that where it....

Maybe I'll ask you what your view is on foreign entities providing dollars to Canadian members of Parliament at the level of extreme, lavish trips, and its impact on our democracy here. I know we've had a whole bunch of conversations about foreign interference and the interference of foreign entities in Canadian democracy. I would love your viewpoint on that.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Obviously, like everybody else, I think that foreign actors playing on the Canadian scene shouldn't happen, and this should be restricted as much as it can be.

However, I am bound to apply a law. I can only look at that law, apply the power that the law gives me and enforce those provisions. If you feel they're not strong enough, you're not alone. Lots of people obviously think they should be changed, but at the moment, we have the provisions there and we enforce them as much as we can.

If you think they're not strong enough, then it's up to you as parliamentarians to make them better.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Villemure, you have six minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, gentlemen.

Mr. Dion, I have always appreciated your frankness. It's a virtue when it comes to ethics.

Today, you posted on your Twitter account an article from the Toronto Star that basically states that the documents reveal why the RCMP didn't pursue the investigation into Justin Trudeau in the SNC‑Lavalin affair.

Could you please comment on that?

[Mario Dion]

I posted it because I thought it was an interesting article about a situation I've been following for several years. That's all I wanted to do.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That wasn't my question. I'm talking about the fact that you analyzed this situation at the time.

[Mario Dion]

Yes, obviously. Before producing the investigation report, we analyzed the documents and testimonies available to us.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay.

You've noted, as has everyone here, that the RCMP did not pursue the investigation in question, and today a source is revealing why.

Do you think the reasons are credible?

[Mario Dion]

Seriously, I have no opinion on that.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No problem.

Earlier, my colleague talked about repeated breaches of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. I think you'll agree that ethics is a matter of culture. We have a structure here, which is the code, but ethics is about culture. Of course, some people are more inclined to respect ethics and others less so. That said, it seems to me that there is a certain ethical casualness at the top. Yet the higher you are on the pyramid, the closer you should be to 100% exemplary behaviour.

What do you think about that?

[Mario Dion]

It's obvious that a leader has a lot of influence on the behaviour of the people he leads. I saw it when I was at Correctional Service Canada and the Department of Justice. I've seen it everywhere I've worked. The leader's behaviour is, indeed, very important. It plays a role.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

If the leader is more flippant about a certain subject, then perhaps that flippancy will show up in the rest of the pyramid.

[Mario Dion]

It's possible.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay.

Earlier, someone asked you how long it takes to learn how to do things right. In fact, a one-hour training course on the subject we were talking about earlier—

[Mario Dion]

On the notion of besties, it's pretty obvious.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It seems to me that it is. However, we realize that this isn't enough. We can always train people, but at some point, there is something called judgment. You either have it or you don't. We're stuck with someone who can no doubt improve a little, but if you see such a flippant attitude at the top of the pyramid, it seems to me that it contaminates the rest.

[Mario Dion]

There are two levers.

First, there's education and comprehension, which help the individual to act in accordance with the expectations of the act and the code, the two instruments that apply.

Then there are the consequences, which can have a serious impact on people's behaviour. I will give a very simple example. If the police give a ticket to someone crossing the street when the light is red, it will have a deterrent effect on the people who witness it.

So there's prevention that can be achieved through education, but there is also punishment, which should be applied occasionally to make sure everyone understands that a given behaviour is not acceptable.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

We know that the code doesn't provide for sanctions, beyond the shame itself.

When we had the Trudeau Report and then the Trudeau II Report, I was appalled to know that it was possible to have two reports on the Prime Minister, because I expect him to be more exemplary than anyone else.

Do you think adding sanctions is something to consider?

[Mario Dion]

It's important to remember that there was also the Trudeau III Report, which absolved the Prime Minister.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In this case, you're right.

[Mario Dion]

When I was commissioner, there was a lot of talk in this committee about sanctions. I think there should be a review of the sanctions the commissioner could recommend. The commissioner can't impose sanctions. He's nobody's boss, except those who work in his office. However, recommending sanctions can put real pressure on the Prime Minister, who is, under the act, the final arbiter of all these decisions. In the case of the code, the House of Commons is the final arbiter.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

However, in the case of a report against him, the Prime Minister is his own arbiter.