Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give a very quick response.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

Certainly administering sponsored travel in the same way as gifts is an issue that has been raised in the past for previous commissioners and even myself and my team. That would be applying an acceptability test to make sure that the individuals offering the sponsored travel are not placing the member of Parliament in a conflict of interest situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Dalpé. Thank you, Mr. Green.

We're going to conclude this round with five minutes for Mr. Brock and then five minutes for Ms. Damoff. Then we'll reset for six-minute rounds.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance today.

I'm going to start by offering a comment about the level of hypocrisy that I've heard from some of the Liberal and NDP members. It reminds me of the proverb that those who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

In particular, Ms. Iqra Khalid accepted sponsored travel in 2017 to the United Arab Emirates, and the value was $8,518. The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, and three staff, went to Las Vegas, paid for by United Steelworkers, and the value totalled $7,919. In November 2022, Mr. Singh and two staff travelled to Germany for just under $28,000. One can only imagine the drink and the food that was consumed at those locations. I just throw that out for commentary.

Going back to you, sir, you indicated that generally there's no value in terms of gifts from a friend that would cause you to be concerned, save and except if the trip was truly lavish—your words—or “extraordinary”, or different or truly “unusual”, such that an investigation could launch.

I want to talk about the estate that Justin Trudeau and his family stayed at. It's called the Frankfort suite. This location has units ranging from $700 to $7,000 a night U.S. Far be it for the Prime Minister to actually care about the taxpayer and stay at a unit at $700 a night; he had to go to the maximum at $7,000 a night.

The website says:

Originally a fortified residence dating back to the 17th century, Frankfort is perhaps the most desirable north coast villa in Jamaica.

The property offers six en suite bedrooms. Three bedrooms are located in the main building and three in the beach-side villa known as the “School house”. The main house and School house overlook a spectacular three hundred foot, powdery white sand beach, widely hailed as the best stretch of private beach in Jamaica. The modern luxurious swimming pool overlooks—

Chair, could we have some decorum, please, from Ms. Khalid? She's laughing.

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

Is that from me specifically? Everybody in this committee is—

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

Show some respect.

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

Oh, come on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Brock, I'm stopping your time.

Mr. Brock has the floor.

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

I have a point of clarification, Chair. My name is pronounced “Iqra”, not “Igra”. That's just for Mr. Brock's reference.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Mr. Brock has the floor. I would ask that everybody be quiet and show some respect for Mr. Brock. I expect the same to happen for everybody who has the floor.

Mr. Brock, I've stopped your time. I actually stopped it late.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to give you a little bit of runway here, and then I'll start your time again.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to back up in light of how I was rudely interrupted by colleagues.

The main house and School house overlook a spectacular three hundred foot, powdery white sand beach, widely hailed as the best stretch of private beach in Jamaica. The modern luxurious swimming pool overlooks the ocean and eight person hot tub. A large gazebo sits adjacent to the swimming pool which comfortably seats twelve for outdoor dining.

This 5,082sqft...villa is within it's own private compound comprised of two buildings.

Now let's talk about amenities. It sleeps 12 people. There is an eight-person jacuzzi and a beachfront, as I mentioned. It is fully staffed, sir, with butlers, a cook, gardener, housekeepers and a laundress. There is golf and a spa on site.

That doesn't include, sir, the food, entertainment and recreational activities that probably came at an additional cost. Certainly, this is probably not an all-inclusive vacation. A location like that probably has an additional amount that one would have to pay. We don't know what that amount is. You, sir, probably don't know what that amount is.

You don't think that all of those circumstances, sir, raise it to the level of something that is extremely lavish, extraordinary and unusual?

I can tell you, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister had to say to Marieke Walsh from The Globe and Mail, and doubled and tripled down on in the House and to other reporters, that this wasn't a vacation that was shared by other ordinary Canadians over the Christmas break. Canadians have been suffering with affordability issues caused by this particular Liberal government after eight years of its mismanagement and waste.

In those circumstances, Canadians view this as absolutely truly extravagant and luxurious. In those circumstances, sir, does not the public opinion weigh in on your particular analysis?

I get the impression that the issue—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Brock, we're past the time.

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

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm not going to allow you to answer, because we have to keep a tight timeline, Commissioner. If you feel like you want to answer at some point, then you can do that.

I'm going to move to Ms. Damoff next, please.

Ms. Damoff, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank you both for being here today.

On a point of clarification, I just looked at Ms. Khalid's travel claim for that trip. Her meals were $200 for her trip, which is quite a difference from the meals for the Conservative MPs who went to the U.K. The five of them spent what I would call truly lavishly, with a $6,200 dinner and a $600 bottle of champagne. Her meals for her whole trip didn't even cover the cost of one bottle of champagne.

On that, Conservative MP John Williamson's trip was sponsored by the Danube Institute. It's a right-wing Hungarian think tank. I did a quick check of their Twitter feed; they reposted one tweet that said, “Budapest is China's greatest friend within the EU....” There's another one that says, “Note that South Africa is undergoing a slow, steady, semi-genocidal purification of its white citizens.” This is the organization that paid for Mr. Williamson's travel to the U.K. At their $6,200 dinner, we don't know if there was lobbying of the MPs by this organization.

I completely agree with my colleague Mr. Green about putting sponsored travel onto the members' office budgets, but my concern is with the changing of the sponsored travel rules. Now sponsored travel can only be done by organizations that are not lobbying Canadian MPs. I'm quite concerned about foreign interference coming in here. You're going to have foreign entities like the Danube Institute sponsoring Canadian MPs not just as a way to get around our sponsored travel rules but also as a way to influence Canadian elected officials.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the dangers of foreign interference when it comes to these types of travel.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Well, you know, first of all, sponsored travel is dealt with by the code that you impose upon yourselves. It is up to you to change it. Of course you want to deal with it. If you do that and you want to update it, you want to also deal with what you perceive and what you feel are current attempts to influence Canadian public opinion and elected officials. If you feel that provisions like that are necessary, you can certainly put them in. Whether you put them in as part of sponsored travel or as a whole separate thing is an issue.

All we are dealing with is what your code deals with and what the act has as its goal: to give Canadians public confidence that their elected officials and their appointed officials are acting in good faith and not according to private interests or foreign interests. How you express it and what devices you use are up to you.

We have right now, as you know, a public inquiry into foreign influence, and maybe it's necessary to deal with foreign influence both in terms of sponsored travel and in terms of other travel in the code and the act. I don't know. This is essentially a decision for you to make. I think it would be useful if you did it, but that's my personal opinion. I have no opinion as the commissioner.

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

I wanted to touch briefly on confidentiality.

Before coming in, I heard Mr. Barrett talking about how he feels that the Prime Minister's documents should be released and that it's a matter of public interest for them to be released.

I feel that it's a foundation of your office that our conversations as MPs or cabinet ministers or as the prime minister be kept confidential. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that, and if you think the system could even work if people knew that the documents were going to be released to the public.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Well, I don't think it would.

A bit of a parallel is solicitor-client privilege. If you come to me as a solicitor, I defend you. Let's say you have been charged with something. Everything you tell me is in confidence. I will actually know the unvarnished truth about what happened. I will then try to use that knowledge to defend you.

It's the same thing here. You come and say, “This is my situation.” You are confronting this issue or this thing is starting to be a political problem or a financial problem, and you say, “What do I do?” I tell you the provisions of the act related to what you can do and what you can't do. You then do what you feel.

You don't have to take my advice. Usually you do, because it's the safest plan. If you think I am overly cautious or that this is something you can weather and you want go ahead, that's your decision, but the system wouldn't work unless you have this cornerstone whereby you and I exchange everything. You tell me the truth, and I will give you the honest opinion of how to handle it.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

That wraps up the first round of questions.

We'll now begin the second round of questions. Each member will have six minutes.

I would also ask Mr. Villemure to chair for a few minutes.

Mr. Barrett, you have six minutes. Then you're next, Madame Fortier. I wanted you to prepare for your questions. That's why I didn't ask you.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

You spoke about a public office holder who received a gift that was truly lavish. The example you gave was that of a Ferrari. That would be exceptional, and you would initiate an investigation.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Well, not quite. The way it was posed to me is that there is a legal gift. It's a gift. It's from a friend—

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

Sure—