Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

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

On that case specifically, did Mr. Williamson consult with your office in advance of taking this trip?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Again, any consultations that the members of Parliament or elected office-holders have with us are confidential. If he wants to disclose that he talked to us, it's up to him; we would not disclose it.

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

Hypothetically, if a member of Parliament reached out to you to consult about whether they were able to accept a paid trip from an organization they had founded, what would your answer have been?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'll pass you on to Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, who is the person who will give the answer.

What would you say to a person like that?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Essentially, under the code, as the commissioner mentioned, there are no exceptions and there are no provisions for members to consult us, and therefore members are at liberty to accept any sponsored travel.

If they come to our office, we would say that there are no acceptability tests in the context of sponsored travel. It is the decision of the member to determine whether or not he or she should accept the sponsored travel, because the code is very specific: There are no acceptability tests under the code.

Some of you may remember that on a few occasions previous commissioners did ask for acceptability tests to be applied under the sponsored travel rules, and the procedure and House affairs committee did not concur with that. Again, it is up to members to make that determination.

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

I'm pretty sure that there are provisions in the code that determine who is eligible to sponsor and who is not, but....

Did Mr. Williamson consult with your office about accepting a paid trip from a Hungarian think tank?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I feel like I'm repeating myself. As I said in my opening statement, one core principle that makes the system work is confidentiality. Therefore, you as office-holders can come to talk to us in full confidence that whatever you discuss with us will not be disclosed. It's up to you to disclose.

I cannot answer the question of whether he came or not and what he said, etc. You will have to ask him.

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

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Assuming that this trip we're talking about to London was organized by Canadians for Affordable Energy, since they paid for four out of the five members, did Mr. Williamson consult with you about attending a paid trip sponsored by an organization that he had previously founded? I know you can't answer that question directly, but maybe you can talk about what our rules and the code say about members' affiliations with an organization, especially a foreign organization that is funding a trip for members, and especially such a lavish trip.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 20 seconds, Commissioner.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

In your instance, the code for the House of Commons has to look at what the principles are. They have to “fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each member and in the House of Commons”.

The member would come, lay out the question, ask if it complies with subsection 2(b), which I just read out to you, and ask what the implications are, etc. We would give them advice and say it's up to them, but we would suggest they do A, B, C, or not D, or yes, you can do all of it, whatever the situation is. The member then proceeds as he or she sees fit.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Ms. Robinson-Dalpé.

Ms. Khalid, I gave a little extra time for that answer to happen.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us again, Mr. von Finckenstein.

Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, you always come in good faith, which impresses me every time.

My questions will focus on the public interest.

Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, first of all, when was the last time the code in question was revised?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

Are you talking about the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons or the Conflict of Interest Act?

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

I'm talking about the Conflict of Interest Act.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

It was revised in 2013, but there was no change.

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

When were the last amendments made to the code?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

The amendments date back to the last election, in 2021.

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

Thank you.

Do you think the code needs to be updated or do you think it's fine as it is?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Legislation and codes always need to be reviewed, reformed and adjusted based on the current situation.

It's now 2024, and it seems to me that a review would be appropriate. The world has changed a lot, and the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons were written before we really understood the digital challenges we face now.

A review would be a good idea.

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

That's exactly the direction was I was going with my question. Yes, the code was drafted at a certain time, but the world is changing and so is the social context. If we don't want the code to become a dead tool, we have to keep it alive by updating it regularly.

I have always found it curious that over the years, the concept of friendship has so often been at the heart of discussions, whether with Ms. Dawson, Mr. Dion or you now. We often talk about Mr. Trudeau, but without personalizing the issue, the fact remains that friendship is still a basic element of society. It's not forbidden.

However, in 2024, even if it is permissible to give a gift to a friend—I heard you on that and that's perfectly fine—sometimes we're talking about amounts that may be shocking to people.

Should there be a maximum amount?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

There's no maximum set out in the act or the code. However, in situations where, as you say, it's an exceptional gift, like a $1-million Ferrari, for example, I always have the option of launching an investigation on my own initiative, if I have reason to believe that there's a problem. Even very rich friends don't give each other gifts like that. So I can launch an investigation in truly exceptional cases, such as the gift of a Ferrari, for example. However, the act does not set out any maximum amount.

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

In fact, the act doesn't set out an amount. So for the benefit of the members who read the act and consult you for your confidential opinion, would it be wise to set a maximum amount, even if it's high? That would be better than nothing.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

There are other codes elsewhere that set a maximum amount. First, you asked whether the act should be amended, and perhaps we could do that. Parliament could then decide on an acceptable maximum amount.

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

Do you think other sections of the act should be reviewed?