Evidence of meeting #99 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gift.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
[Inaudible—Editor]
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I will note for the record, sir, that you gave her a look that would seem to kind of guide the answer.
My question was for Ms. Robinson-Dalpé. Is it something you can answer or is it something you're not aware of? There's a difference.
January 30th, 2024 / 12:40 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's definitely something I'm not aware of.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Oh. I forgot about that. I'm sorry. I thought it was my last....
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's perfect timing.
Mr. Berthold will take the floor next; then it will be Mr. Kelloway. They will each have five minutes. Then, it will be Mr. Villemure and Mr. Green, and they will each have two and a half minutes.
Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I’ll be rather quick.
Mr. von Finckenstein, it is convenient for the Prime Minister’s Office or for a minister to use your name or your position as Ethics Commissioner to justify what seems to be indefensible in public. It’s enough to say a request was made of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who preapproved the trip. Some ministers are ready to say whatever it takes to defend their prime minister, who, by the way, was found guilty twice of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act.
We had a little exchange earlier about Mr. Steven MacKinnon’s statements. I went to check them; I can send you the audio clip if you want. In a press conference on January 8, Mr. MacKinnon said the following: "The Prime Minister followed all the rules; he spoke to the Ethics Commissioner to have his travel plans preapproved."
Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That is the interpretation of the Prime Minister’s spokesperson.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That is his interpretation of what happened. Someone from the Prime Minister’s Office spoke to a member of the Commissioner’s Office and we gave our advice, that’s all.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
So when Mr. MacKinnon said the Prime Minister spoke to the Ethics Commissioner, that was not correct.
12:40 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We did not speak personally, no. That’s certain.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much.
I was a little confused. I listened to your earlier exchange with my colleague Michael Barrett about Ferraris. I’d like to try to understand it a bit better. The gift of a $200,000 Ferrari could trigger an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. However, when Mr. Barrett said that Mr. Trudeau’s successive holidays were the equivalent of about $200,000, you suddenly talked about a $1 million amount, easily achieved in the case of one Ferrari.
Mr. von Finckenstein, how can the public know where the limit is? What is acceptable? What is the required amount to trigger an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner when receiving a lavish gift, be it a car or a holiday in a luxury resort? Is it $200,000 or $1 million?
I heard you talk about it with my colleague earlier, and you lost me a little.
12:45 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I apologize for using a Ferrari as an example.
What I was trying to say is that the rules are clear: if it is a gift from a friend, it is acceptable.
What I said is that, ultimately, if something is completely beyond the pale—I’m talking about an amount so excessive it raises questions—I can always self-initiate an inquiry as Commissioner. I’m mandated by the Conflict of Interest Act.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
It’s based on the person’s means. In my case, if one of my friends offered me an $84,000 vacation, it would be deemed excessive because I could never afford it on my own.
12:45 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Obviously, circumstances must be taken into account: the amount of the gifts, the friendship, the situation and all that. When necessary, the Act allows me to self-initiate an inquiry.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That’s my…
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
…according to the facts.
Mr. von Finckenstein, I have another question to ask you before wrapping up, because time is running out fast.
When you talked with my colleague earlier, you said that after analyzing a file, you give your legal opinion, but you can also provide a judgment.
It’s possible to judge the way a gift may be perceived. However, if you don’t speak directly with the Prime Minister or with members, how is it possible to give that bit of friendly advice?
Furthermore, was this type of advice provided to the Prime Minister’s Office about the Prime Minister’s Jamaican vacation?
12:45 p.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As you know, I cannot talk about the advice we provided. I answered your colleague very clearly on that matter.
To give the best possible opinion, we will talk about the legal aspect, but also about the ethical aspect of the situation.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Kelloway, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the folks, the commissioner and others, who are there today.
I think I have five minutes, Chair, or is it two minutes?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I have a couple of things.
I have a question, Commissioner, about a couple of things I want to highlight, given that we're towards the end of this session today.
What I heard today was the commissioner confirming that the PM stayed with a friend with no connection to government. The commissioner is not investigating, and there's nothing new to investigate. The commissioner said the matter is closed.
I also found it interesting, as a number of folks talked about today, and you mentioned, that your advice is tantamount to a ruling. It certainly appears that a ruling was made by you and your office, which I appreciate.
The question I have is this: Can you reassure Canadians that your office is immune to political interference of any sort? I think that's an important question and an equally important answer, if we can get that from you.