Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

This is really a question of drafting. If you try to define “friend”, you're automatically limited. Is this a friend or not? People will try to decide whether they fall under or out of the definition. If you just put “friend” and give the discretion to the commissioner to decide it, then if need be, it can go further to the courts in terms of a judicial review.

You set out the concept and you hope that in the administration of the act, it becomes clarified. That's usually how we do it in Canada.

The U.S. does exactly the opposite. It will define it extremely narrowly—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But there can't really be a judicial review of your work, can there?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes. There can be a couple of cases on this.

One of them is the assessment of friendship as a matter of fact. It should be measured not only by considering the closeness of the bond between the office-holder and the individual, but also against more objective indicators.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then if the people who are watching, who I'm sure are glued to their televisions right now, had a complaint, or if this had been an official complaint put by my friend Mr. Barrett to you and you decided it wasn't worth pursuing, a member of the general public could take that decision and apply for a judicial review. Is that how the process works?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

If I make an error, yes, you can have judicial review. If the decision I made—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How would they possibly know if it's a client-solicitor privilege and you don't have to disclose anything?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's enough.

Quickly answer that question, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think it's an important question.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I can't answer that.

I said it's akin to solicitor-client privilege because it's advice. That's all we're doing.

The whole idea—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you provide a written answer?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Why don't I give you [Inaudible—Editor]? That would be easiest.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I would appreciate that, just for the sake of time.

I assure you, Mr. Green, that the only one glued at this hour to these proceedings is my mom in Barrie.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock. You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, what I described to you earlier in my first round was a super-luxurious vacation by any imagination. A luxurious vacation or a gift is not defined in the act. It's fair to say that you're applying a subjective lens as to what you deem to be super-luxurious, which would require an investigation, as opposed to an objective standard that the Canadian public views as clearly luxurious.

On the Ferrari issue—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me, Mr. Brock.

I'm having a tough time hearing Mr. Brock. Could we keep the conversations down, please?

I'm sorry, Larry. I didn't mean to....

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

Thank you.

Did you stop my time, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I did. Go ahead.

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

You provided the example that if someone gave the Prime Minister a Ferrari, clearly you would flag that. There would be an investigation into a Ferrari, anywhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000, but two consecutive yearly vacations to this ultraopulent villa, totalling well over $200,000, do not qualify.

Is that accurate, sir?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No.

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

That's not accurate.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

That's not what I said.

First of all, I said “million”, not $200,000. Secondly, I said in such a situation, I could, if I wanted to, step in and have an investigation. I did not say I would. I just said if—

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

That would be your subjective standard as to what is luxurious. Is that correct?

It's not defined in the act, sir.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Of course it's not defined. It's a discussion. I had a discussion to start an investigation. When there is a situation that gives me reason to believe that something has been done here that amounts to a conflict of interest—

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

I have to move on. I have one minute left.

This is on the issue of the communications from the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office. I'm not asking about content. I'm asking about delivery.

Was it delivered via email, text, telephone or a memo? I believe your earlier evidence was there was perhaps a phone call. I don't know what the duration was, but can you clarify that, sir?

It is extremely important that the public understand what details were provided to you by the Prime Minister's Office. Please answer that.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Honestly, I don't know the answer. Do you, Lyne?

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

Will you table that answer?