Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good morning, everyone. I apologize for the delay.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 98 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting, at the request of four members, to discuss the request to undertake a study of the Prime Minister's vacation to Jamaica.

I would like to remind all members to not put their earpieces next to the microphones, as it causes feedback and potential injury. That being said, the floor is open.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning to you and colleagues.

I hope everyone had a restful time with family and was able to catch up with and connect with their communities.

It was a challenging Christmas for many Canadians. We saw record food bank use and, of course, people facing challenges with their home heating bills. I just want to quickly go over a couple of headlines, and then I have a motion that I would like to put forward to the committee.

Some of the headlines we saw over this Christmas were “High prices, tight budgets have Canadians trimming how they'll celebrate this Christmas”, “Montreal soup kitchen may have to stop feeding homeless for first time since 1877”, “‘All I’m doing...is working and paying bills.’ Why some are leaving Canada for more affordable countries” and “The rising cost of living means this mom of 3 goes hungry so her kids can eat”. It has been a challenging time for many people, and it's heartbreaking to see the struggles that our fellow Canadians are going through.

Here are two more headlines: “Trudeau's office won't answer questions on $84,000 vacation” and “Trudeau given free stay at $9,300-a-night luxury Jamaican villa over Christmas holidays”. This is, of course, what brings us here, and those numbers are staggering. We have an $84,000 vacation when the median Canadian household income is about $70,000.

The problem begins with the first explanation the Prime Minister's Office gave about this vacation. This isn't a question about a prime minister being deserving of a vacation or anyone being deserving of a vacation. If they're able to afford it and they have the time and their health, it's wonderful that they're able to do that.

The problem is that the first answer the Prime Minister's Office gave to Canadians about this was the Prime Minister was paying for the vacation. It wasn't until the media followed up, learned about the cost of the destination and asked who was paying for it.... The answer was that, in fact, the Prime Minister was not paying for this vacation.

We started with the Prime Minister saying he was paying for it, and then saying it was being gifted to him.

That's a remarkable gift: $84,000. The question of whether or not a prime minister should be accepting gifts worth $84,000 is one that, perhaps, an eventual study at this committee could consider—whether it's ever appropriate.

The story changed again and the Prime Minister offered a third version of events, saying he was staying with friends at their place and he wasn't paying for it. We know that the Prime Minister's Office said the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner cleared the vacation.

The Ethics Commissioner has since said that's not a function they provide. They don't pre-clear vacations. The Ethics Commissioner cannot release the correspondence between the Prime Minister and his office without the authority, an instruction or a production order to do so. That can be resolved by the Prime Minister furnishing Parliament and Canadians with that correspondence and releasing it, demonstrating that the third story we got from the Prime Minister was, in fact, the same story he gave the Ethics Commissioner.

The question is this: Was the Ethics Commissioner deceived or misled in any way? We need to get to the bottom of that.

The best way to do that would be to have the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner come to this committee. We could look at a number of things, but the precision of what we need to accomplish.... The reason we're here is to deal with this specific event and this $84,000 gift. It happened to take the form of a vacation.

That's why I have the following motion to move. I have it in both official languages. The clerk should have received a copy of it.

Very simply, Chair, I move:

That the Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear at the earliest opportunity regarding the Prime Minister’s vacation to Jamaica.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The motion has been moved. The clerk has advised me that she has sent it to the members of the committee in both official languages.

I suspect, Mr. Barrett, just for clarity, that's for one meeting. Is that correct? It's just for one meeting.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

The motion has been moved. I have Mr. Brock, followed by Ms. Khalid and then Ms. Damoff after that.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start at the outset by wishing all my colleagues a happy new year. I hope everyone had an enjoyable, relaxing time away from the Hill. A few of us are unfortunately back earlier than we anticipated, but this is an important issue—and not only for parliamentarians. It's an important issue for Canadians.

As my colleague Mr. Barrett indicated, 2024 has not started off on a new footing. It's essentially the same sort of issue that Canadians were dealing with in 2023 and 2022, and that's the issue of affordability. Personally, I know that many members of my constituency wrote to me and expressed their astonishment at how tone deaf this Prime Minister and this Liberal government were, in light of all of the issues that Canadians are facing, that they would find it appropriate that he accept an $84,000 gift for an extremely extravagant holiday in Jamaica.

I think we are all of the same belief—and I believe all Canadians are of the same belief, Mr. Chair—that the Prime Minister is indeed worthy of a vacation. He is indeed worthy of spending quality time with his family. He was born of privilege. He maintains a lifestyle of privilege. It's no shock to anyone here at this committee or in the House or across Canada that he is well connected in terms of friends and other associates around the world, and he probably enjoys staying at locations that offer some of the finer things in life.

As a starting point, we don't begrudge that. What we do begrudge is how a particular issue such as this has blown up to such an extent that it now has the makings of a scandal. This was really a non-issue from the get-go. If the Prime Minister and his office were completely transparent as to who sourced this particular vacation, how it was communicated to the Prime Minister and all the terms associated with his accepting the offer to stay at this luxurious villa, and had he been up front with Parliament—had he been up front with Canadians—right from the outset, I don't think we'd be here today, but the Prime Minister and his office have compounded this particular issue such that we, as parliamentarians, are here asking for clarification.

As you know, Mr. Chair, this isn't a one-off. This is a pattern of conduct with this Prime Minister and his office to mislead Canadians. Setting aside the controversy surrounding his trip to the Aga Khan's island and how he was found guilty of breaching the ethics guidelines, he promised Canadians, in the House, that he would do better, that he would communicate in advance with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and be up front, because the hallmark of the Trudeau brand, the hallmark of the Trudeau government, is transparency. That's what he promised Canadians during the 2015 general election. He said that if voted for him, you would have the most open, transparent and accountable government this country has ever seen.

Has that happened, Mr. Chair? Absolutely not. I really don't know if anyone on the Liberal bench—and certainly the Prime Minister—even understands the definition of transparency.

Most recently, the government shuffled some positions. One of the shuffled positions was that of the House leader, the government House leader who is now occupying that position, by the name of Steve MacKinnon. Steve MacKinnon was asked by the press with respect to this vacation. He indicated as follows: “The Prime Minister followed all the rules and, in fact, got his travel plans pre-approved by the commissioner.” We know that's a lie. It's misleading. It was deliberate.

It was intentional on Mr. MacKinnon's part to mislead Canadians, because now we know that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner does not pre-approve and give permission to vacation. The issue is whether or not the form of a gift qualifies as an acceptable one under the act.

Steve MacKinnon, the government House leader, went on in a different interview to say as follows:

“I think Canadians don’t want to deny the prime minister the ability to take a Christmas vacation with his family, and that’s what he did,” MacKinnon told reporters last week. “All of the rules have been followed, and the law has—as one of its fundamental pillars—transparency, which is of course the reason why we’re discussing this today. The prime minister has acted transparently.”

Are we to accept the House leader's word for that? I think that would be negligent. I don't think we would be doing our job as His Majesty's loyal opposition to accept that at face value in light of the fact that the office has since rebutted the position taken by the Prime Minister and his office that this was pre-approved.

There's a lot of smoke here, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure there is a fire burning. We need to find out its source. As I indicated, this is not a one-off. It is a series of missteps by this government. I talked about the Aga Khan vacation. We then had the dress-up clown show in India.

We then had the issue surrounding the very first Truth and Reconciliation Day. Again, one of the hallmarks of the Trudeau brand and our Prime Minister in the 2015 election was his pronouncement that no other relationship was more important to Canada than its relationship with indigenous Canadians. He created the very first Truth and Reconciliation Day after the discovery of the unmarked graves in Kamloops. This was an important milestone in the history of this country and an effort to broker reconciliation between non-indigenous and indigenous alike.

What did the Prime Minister do? The Prime Minister instructed his office to lie to Canadians to say that he was in Canada engaging in private meetings, when in fact some sleuths in the Canadian public were able to track his flight and realized that he wasn't in Ottawa. He was en route to B.C. to take a surfing vacation on a day—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff, on your point of order as it relates to the Standing Orders. I'd just like some clarification on that, if you don't mind.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Yes. Twice now the member has said that the Prime Minister lied. I think we all know that this is not allowed under parliamentary rules. I just wondered, Chair, if you could remind the honourable member that he can't say the Prime Minister lied.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

I would ask Mr. Brock to be a little bit more judicious with his words.

Thank you.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

The Prime Minister was deceitful to Canadians, Mr. Chair. Instead of telling the truth, he said he was in Ottawa engaged in private meetings, when in fact he furthered his own selfish private interests by taking a surfing vacation on the very first day that he created. It was embarrassing. It was shameful. It was an event that should not have happened.

Again, these are things that I wanted to bring to the attention of this committee, that this Jamaican Christmas vacation now is not a one-off. It displays a pattern of miscommunication and deceit by the Prime Minister's Office, giving three different versions of the truth as to what they communicated to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We as parliamentarians, but more importantly Canadians from coast to coast to coast, need some daylight shed on this issue.

For all those reasons, I support my colleague's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

On the motion, I do have a list. I have Ms. Khalid, followed by Ms. Damoff.

Then it will be Mr. Gourde's turn, followed by Ms. Fortier.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead. You have the floor on the motion.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On the motion, I think it's important for us to understand the context of it, so if it's okay with you, and through you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Barrett about this. I know that he has written a letter to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I'm just wondering if he got a response and what that response was.

If that's okay, Chair, once I get the answer from Mr. Barrett I'd like to take the floor back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, do you have a response for Ms. Khalid or not?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'd say that the most relevant point from the commissioner's response was that he's not able to share correspondence—if there was any—between the Prime Minister's Office and his office.

Hearing from the Ethics Commissioner and then being able to make a decision as a committee on whether we are going to have documents produced and whether we are going to have a review of the act are all things that we can do, but they are not things the commissioner can do proactively.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair.

I'm quite perplexed, actually. We give the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner the ability and the privilege to look into the affairs of and consult with each member of Parliament and each elected official to help and guide us in how we conduct our affairs in the most ethical and transparent manner.

Since Mr. Barrett wrote to the Ethics Commissioner on this specific issue, it would be nice to see—because this matter is now before the committee—what the actual response was. I would love for Mr. Barrett to share with the whole committee how the Ethics Commissioner responded to him on these questions that we are all deliberating on right now during this emergency 106(4) meeting.

I'm hoping that Mr. Barrett, of his own accord, will share and forward—whether it's through the clerk or to all of our committee members—what the exact response was. It calls into question how we conduct ourselves as members of Parliament, the importance of the transparency with which we operate and the importance of making sure that there is trust in democratic institutions.

Over these past couple of days, I've delved into this question of what the difference is between taking a vacation with a family friend—having consulted with the Ethics Commissioner or let them know you're about to do this—and then paying back the cost of the flights for it versus going on a trip with a Hungarian think tank to the United Kingdom and having thousands of dollars' worth of fine food.

Where is that line? How do we really understand and appreciate what our role as members of Parliament is and what the role of the Conflict of Interest Act is?

Whether it's important or not to members of the opposition, I think this is an important question for us to expand on to understand the nature of this study. It's important to understand and appreciate that this is not just about one person; this is about an institution. It is about how we conduct ourselves and how we ensure that transparency and the obligation to Canadians exist in how we operate as members of Parliament, given that we are in a place of privilege where we have the opportunity to make policy and advocate on certain issues and what influences those issues.

I wonder if a Hungarian think tank would like to influence how we operate here in Parliament, and whether a steak would influence what the Conservatives wanted to advocate for. Perhaps this matter requires a deep understanding of how the Conflict of Interest Act really operates within our Parliament, how we can ensure that transparency exists and that we continue to maintain trust in our democratic institutions, and how we conduct ourselves as members of Parliament.

As I continue to opine on this, Mr. Chair, Mr. Brock referred to the House leader and the new House leader. I want to wish the former House leader, Karina Gould, a very blessed maternity leave as she goes on to have a baby and really reconnect with her own family, and Mr. MacKinnon takes on her role in an acting capacity as she builds her family.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Next, we're going to Ms. Damoff on the motion.

You have the floor. Go ahead, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Colleagues, it's nice to see you. I'm wishing you all the best for the new year.

When Mr. Barrett began the introduction to his motion, he talked about affordability. You know, that's a concern Canadians have. There's absolutely no doubt about that. That's why as a government we have brought in reduced child care fees. If you think that isn't helping families, I know that for my own family, the reduction of fees by half here in Ontario has made a huge difference. That's not just for my family but also for families all across the country. In fact, yesterday I was at the YWCA in Hamilton to see their child care centre and to talk to the staff about people who have been living in poverty who are now able to access child care.

When it comes to housing, the opposition always neglects to mention that the Leader of the Opposition lives in government-subsidized housing and then goes out and talks about how we're not doing anything. Monday I was in Burlington, Ontario, to announce $21 million for the City of Burlington to accelerate housing in that city. Last month in my riding, we announced $55 million for apartments. There are low-interest loans for developers to be able to build rental units in Oakville. Affordability is an issue. We acknowledge that, and that's why we are working towards that.

One of the things Mr. Barrett and Mr. Brock talked about was the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Mr. Barrett said that, in his response, the commissioner said they wouldn't be releasing any documents, and rightly so. As members of Parliament, we all expect that when we speak to the Ethics Commissioner, that information will be held confidential. There's an expectation that when we have those conversations, when we lay out something that we want an opinion on, that's not going to be made public. In fact, if that were to change and those documents were to be made public, quite frankly no one would consult with the commissioner, because there would be a fear that privileged, private and other information could be made public in the future.

That's a fundamental aspect of that office. In fact, as a parliamentary secretary, I have to file a report with the Ethics Commissioner annually. There's no way that it would be appropriate for those kinds of documents to be made public, nor would it be appropriate, anytime any MP or the Prime Minister consulted with that office, that those conversations would be made public. There's an expectation that they will be private.

That's critically important for us to remember. The Prime Minister did communicate with the office before his trip this Christmas. Rightly so, the office has said that it can't share that information.

Mr. Chair, I know that others want to speak to this motion, so I will leave it there for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all my House of Commons colleagues.

I was one of the people who signed the letter requesting a meeting to plan a parliamentary investigation into the Prime Minister's vacation. Before the holidays, I was surprised to learn through the media that he stayed in a $9,300-a-night villa—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not getting the translation despite having chosen English on Zoom. I'm just wondering if we could have that looked into and corrected before we proceed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Gourde, can you say a few words for the interpreters?

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

Yes, no problem.

I will start over and focus on the part that I feel is really important, which is the concerns raised in the media before the holidays—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Aldag, my understanding is that it's working. I'm not sure.... You said you were on English, but can you just double-check that for us, please?