Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 17th, 2024

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

I'd like to speak to the amendment now, but I will have something to say about the motion afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Villemure.

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

I like the spirit of the amendment. Having said that, trips or vacations are types of gifts. If we want the commissioner to come and meet with us, I think he'll have to explain his position or the rules set out in the law with respect to gifts, since travel and vacations can be gifts. Mr. von Finckenstein is a brilliant and fascinating person to hear from, and I'd just like us to make the most of his presence by not limiting the subject to travel, so that we don't have to come back in six months to talk about any other type of gift.

I'd suggest a small wording change so that the discussion is about gifts, travel, and vacations.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure is proposing a subamendment to include all gifts in Ms. Fortier's proposal.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Fortier agrees, but I still have to ask if anyone wishes to speak to the subamendment proposed by Mr. Villemure.

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

Mr. Blaikie wants to speak, and then I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

A subamendment has been moved, so we're dealing with that.

Because his hand is up, I'm going to go to Mr. Blaikie first on the subamendment moved by Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Blaikie, do you have any discussion on that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would it be possible to take a few minutes to circulate a written version in both official languages of Ms. Fortier's amendment and Mr. Villemure's subamendment? A lot of changes have now been proposed and, without the text, it's hard to suggest other changes to the motion. It would give us a clearer understanding of the proposed changes and the resulting motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk is currently working on the amendment and the subamendment. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes until he circulates them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The meeting has been called back to order.

I want to thank the clerk for working on the double-amended motion.

It now reads, with the amendment and subamendment, “That the Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear for one meeting regarding the rules for gifts, vacations and travel in the Conflict of Interest Act and code.”

That double-amended motion has been sent to every member. The only thing that is missing in this is a timeline. You know I like to deal in timelines. I don't like to leave anything up in the air, so I'm going to suggest, if somebody wants to move this, that “at the earliest opportunity” be inserted somewhere in there so that we can deal with this in a manner that is quick and have a meeting in a relatively short period of time.

Mr. Blaikie, when we left, you were asking for the motion to be circulated as amended twice. It has been. Do you have any other comments on the subamendment? You still have the floor.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Sure. I will speak just a little, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to address both the subject of the meeting and also these particular amendments and subamendment.

I just want to start by saying that I certainly do think this is an issue of interest to a lot of Canadians who see the size and scope of the bill for this vacation and can't help but be struck at the extent to which it's well outside the contemplation of most Canadians to think about spending that kind of money on a vacation. I think any time you get different and contradictory answers out of the leader of the government about something like this, it rightly raises a lot of questions and is cause for concern for Canadians. Then the question becomes how we get to the bottom of that.

There are two components to that.

There's the question of the extent to which the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is going to look into this. There's a process for that. I think one reason the trip to the Aga Khan's island is so well cemented in the minds of Canadians is that a non-partisan officer of Parliament looked into that trip and made a determination about whether or not it was appropriate under the act. It was determined that it in fact was not.

I think in that case the credibility of having a non-partisan officer of Parliament investigate a case and pronounce on it goes a long way to helping inform the conversation and the debate for Canadians. Whether it's a government politician or an opposition politician, Canadians are not wrongly skeptical of the claims of politicians regarding these things. They take some level of comfort and reassurance in having a non-partisan officer of Parliament investigate these matters and make a determination. That is important with respect to the law, but I think it's also important in terms of Canadians' own opinions and feeling that they have information they can trust and based upon which they can come to their own judgment on what actually happened. Then there's a subsequent judgment in their own mind about the political significance of that and what they think is important.

There's the question of whether the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is going to be looking at this. I think one of the ways to find that out is for the committee to have the opportunity to ask the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I do think it's appropriate to have a meeting to which the Conflict of Interest Commissioner can come and, among other things, talk about whether or not the office is contemplating an investigation of this case. That would establish a non-partisan process.

Of course, in the absence of a non-partisan process—and we've had some of these conversations around public inquiries as well—I think Parliament becomes a more appropriate forum for pursuing some of these things. However, when you have a non-partisan process that Canadians tend to trust more and that tends to be more focused on the relative facts with less of the political circus-making that can sometimes happen around tables like these—and I don't think it will come as a shock to members around this table to know that or to hear that—I think that is of benefit to Canadians. At least it seems to me that an appropriate starting place is to have a meeting.

I like the idea of expanding the scope of the meeting. I think we've heard already—and of course I don't have the content of the full response to Mr. Barrett from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner—and we can glean from what he said so far that the commissioner maybe hasn't gone into the exact details of the case because of the nature of the act and the way it's set up. Given the way in which the commissioner is meant to give advice to parliamentarians on these things in a confidential way, I don't think we should be surprised if the Conflict of Interest Commissioner comes and, in response to detailed questions about this particular trip, says things like, “Well, I'm not at liberty to disclose that,” or, “I can't share that information.” I think it makes sense to expand the scope of the visit to not exclude the question about the Jamaica trip. Obviously, that's why we're all here. There's a considerable amount of interest about it. I don't think that, if we were to set up that visit with the interim commissioner in a way that precluded questions about that, it would serve much of a useful purpose.

On the other hand, to have it be only about that also means that I think we may be setting ourselves up to get some quite unsatisfactory answers from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and setting expectations that are more likely to produce more of a sense of frustration for Canadians who are tuning in than to provide them with information that they think is useful.

Also, I think it is the case that what has happened in the case of Jamaica, just as when we talk about sponsored trips.... I think somebody referred to the trip last June by some Conservative MPs, with the $600 for champagne. People hear about that and they're upset as well. All of this is governed by the same set of rules, largely. There are rules around sponsored travel. There are rules around gifts. All of these things govern the behaviour of MPs.

If there's a solution to this recurring...because I agree with my Conservative colleagues that there is a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister. It may be that what he's doing is permitted by the rules. There's no rule that prohibits an expensive vacation, but there are rules that talk about what is appropriate to repay and what is not, or what rate you have to pay, so that even if you're taking a government jet, you pay the equivalent of a commercial flight. That was something that then prime minister Stephen Harper was quick to point out in 2011, when he went to Boston for a Stanley Cup game in a government jet. That was his defence at the time: “Look, I'm reimbursing the commercial rate—that's what the rules say.”

There's a whole set of rules and infrastructure that govern the behaviour both of members of Parliament in this respect and of government members. Especially because there seems to be a recurring pattern of behaviour—yes, with this Prime Minister, but also with the previous governments, which behaved similarly under the existing rules—we have to talk about those rules as well, if we're hoping to get to some kind of lasting solution or to a place where Canadians aren't regularly reading in the news about sensational trips that cause them to feel that something untoward is going on, or whether the price tag of the vacation itself is what people are upset about and object to.

Also, there's this question of, “Well, you know, I was staying with a friend.” Was it a gift or not a gift? If it was a gift, what does that mean in terms of either conflict of interest or a perception of conflict of interest, which is just as important when we're talking about conflict of interest? I think it's important to remind people on Parliament Hill of that, because sometimes it gets lost. It's not the fact of an actual conflict of interest that meets the threshold. It's also whether there's a reasonable perception of conflict of interest.

That's what it means to be held to a higher standard. It's something that my Conservative colleagues rightly pointed out. The Prime Minister made a lot of hay about this in 2015 when he was first elected: that he wanted to be holding himself to a higher standard and that he would hold members of his government to a higher standard. When you're holding yourself to a higher standard in respect of conflicts of interest, that means to hold yourself to the standard of perception of conflict of interest. When you accept an $80,000 or $90,000 stay at a very nice place somewhere in the world for a family vacation, there are questions that come up about whether a sense of reciprocal obligation is created by accepting a vacation like that.

All of that is to say that I don't think it makes sense to try to talk about this incident to the exclusion of the rules that govern all of our behaviour as members of Parliament in this regard, or the rules that govern government members more specifically, because there are additional rules for members of the government, commensurate with their additional responsibilities as members of the executive. We have to talk about that infrastructure. We have to talk about those rules as well as being able to ask questions about that particular case.

I will say again that I don't know if we'll get a lot of great answers, particularly if the office is contemplating an investigation. If they are, it seems to me that the committee will also have the opportunity to talk to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner after an investigation. Once the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has established some facts and rendered an opinion on it, that would certainly be an appropriate time for the committee to have the commissioner back. We should start with the first meeting, and we should expand the scope.

I have some hesitation for my own part, Mr. Chair, and I certainly respect where you're coming from on timelines. I also like timelines, but as a visitor to the committee, I'm always loath to negotiate timelines at committees where I'm not a regular member, just because as a visitor I don't have the same cognizance of what other things the committee is studying and how those things interact. For my part, I like the fact that there's no date at the moment, only so that the permanent NDP member of the committee, when he's available, can engage in those discussions around appropriate timing. However, I think it's understood that everyone would like to get to this quickly when Parliament resumes.

I will just say, as well, that I think it would behoove us to have some reference to the particular trip that we're talking about here. I want the expanded scope, but I'm not opposed to the idea that we would mention the Jamaica trip in the motion as well. Obviously, that's something that we're talking about; it's not a big deal to have it in there. If that's how the committee usually works and there's an understanding on that, that's fair enough. I certainly won't get in the way of it. I'm not opposed, in principle, to the idea of a mention alongside that expanded scope. Those things all together would contribute to the highest likelihood of having a productive meeting, whenever it happens. I would expect that it would be soon upon Parliament's return, which is only about 10 days away, in any event. As the Conservatives have said, there is a pattern of behaviour here. It's not a pattern of behaviour that I expect to end abruptly. I think it's likely to continue. These are long-standing rules that have been used not just by this government but by the last Conservative government, at least. When we talk about the relative urgency within a 10-day period, I'm not sure that this is something that can't wait for the 10 days to get to regular meetings of the committee. However, I really feel that permanent members of the committee are in the best position to decide that question.

I know that we're now kind of in an awkward place where we have an amendment and a subamendment. As a rule of the committee, we can't have further subamendments. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong about that, but my understanding is that usually we can only amend and then subamend. Therefore, it seems to me that we at least have to pass the subamendment in order to have another subamendment that would deal with the date. I think we could get into some long-winded procedural discussions that members may wish to avoid in one of the last weeks before returning to our regular business—or perhaps not. If we want to have a long-winded procedural discussion about how to move amendments and subamendments with respect to setting a date, you know I'm game for that in the time that we have available. Otherwise, I think that we'll have to pass at least one before we can introduce a discussion about the date. If the goal is to have a motion passed today that gives a mandate to the committee to extend an invitation to the commissioner after some talk, either at this table or informally, about the date on which that meeting would take place, then we may just want to get on with trying to pass a motion. That, of course, will be at the will of the committee.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, very much for the opportunity to just share some of my thoughts about why I think it's important to look at both the particular issue and the larger question of the rules that govern these kinds of vacations or sponsored trips or whatever—these things that come up that are of interest to Canadians—as well as my thoughts on the particular motions today and how the committee ought to proceed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. I appreciate your comments on the timeline.

In the past at this committee, we have, at least from the clerk's and the analysts' perspectives, found some difficulty if we don't actually put a timeline on it. What I'm going to suggest to the committee is that.... Obviously, we don't want to put a specific date to it, but I would suggest, if we can find consensus, that we have it “at the earliest opportunity” when the House resumes. That would at least provide some clarity to the clerk and the analysts on the planning that we have to do for the meetings of the committee. If I can get some consensus from committee members, that would be great. We don't have to move an amendment. We just need some direction from the committee that as soon as possible after the House resumes.... If we could find that consensus, then that would help us with some direction.

Ms. Khalid, I have you on the amendment. Are you discussing—

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

It's on the point that you're talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think that maybe it's prudent for us to vote on the amendment and then the motion. Then we're talking about logistics in terms of timing. That is a conversation that we can have, perhaps, in a subcommittee meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

In the context that Mr. Blaikie was talking about, I just thought that I would put that out to the committee for consideration. However, we can deal with that at the appropriate time.

We're still on the subamendment by Mr. Villemure. I don't see any further discussion. Can we find consensus on the subamendment from Mr. Villemure?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we're on Madame Fortier's amendment, as amended, to Mr. Barrett's motion.

Mr. Barrett, you had your hand up.

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

We'll just move through this first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. On the amendment of Madame Fortier, I'm looking to get some consensus from the committee members.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're back to the main motion as amended by the previous amendments.

Mr. Barrett, I will go to you on the main motion as amended. Go ahead, sir.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I want to emphasize that, with the amendment that happened, you previously clarified that the subject of the Jamaica gift would be fair game for that meeting. Can you confirm this is what you said?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's precisely what I said.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think Mr. Villemure's subamendment addresses that particular issue—gifts, vacations and travel. To be very clear, that would be part of it.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Villemure's subamendment was very helpful, because this is really a question about gifts. This is an $84,000 gift.

I think it's important to re-emphasize what Mr. Blaikie said about not expecting that things are going to change any time soon. I want to offer you a quote from today from the Prime Minister. When asked about this, the Prime Minister said that he knew that, over the holidays, many Canadians stayed with friends, and he didn't see any questions about that.

That demonstrates either a disingenuous response or a complete lack of understanding of why this is an issue. It's an $84,000 gift to a sitting prime minister, a minister of the Crown.

The precision in the motion as amended to talk about both the code and the act are fine, because MP travel is not the same as ministerial or prime ministerial travel. Now that it is opened up to include both, it's fine to have that conversation, but the question is not just that the Prime Minister went somewhere. It's that he accepted an $84,000 gift. He didn't sleep on a couch at Uncle Buck's place.

I appreciate the amendments to the motion. I really don't think the seriousness of this has landed for Prime Minister Trudeau. I hope that hearing from the Ethics Commissioner will help reinforce the legal obligations that designated public office holders have with respect to the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Villemure, you may speak to the motion.