Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

— and by definition, we have established that truly it is a friendship, but the gift is so exceptional in value that it is enough for me to invoke my powers and say that I have reason to believe that this cannot be true. Therefore, I could start an investigation, yes.

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

With that, this is the second year that this gift has been given, to our understanding, with the value bordering on $200,000, for which we're now in the ballpark of buying a Ferrari. That was the example that was given. It's the context for Canadians on what is exceptional and what is reasonable.

It's $84,000 in accommodations alone. We're not challenging the question of the cost of flights and security; this is strictly $84,000 in accommodations in the form of a gift, and it's the second year in a row. For an $84,000 vacation in a single year, if that doesn't rise to the level of exceptional, do two gifts of $84,000, even from a friend, rise to the level of exceptions in the Canadian context?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'm sorry; it's not a Canadian context, because the context here is two friends. The Greens and the Trudeaus are friends. They have been friends since Mr. Trudeau was a child. He has visited his place. Mr. Green has visited Canada. He's been at 24 Sussex. He's been at Harrington Lake. He is the godfather of one of his brothers. There is a true lengthy friendship here. These are people who have means—

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

With due respect, sir—

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'm sorry; you asked me a question. Let me finish it.

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

Sir, to the point of my question, you spoke about the gift being exceptional, notwithstanding the friendship. You said that if one friend gives the public office holder a Ferrari, that would be enough to initiate an investigation. Here we have two gifts that exceed $80,000. The median Canadian household income is $70,000, and the Canadian context is absolutely relevant. Could it be seen to influence a friend?

Mr. Green is a corporate millionaire, so of course they have interest in government policy and any actions the government is going to take. Any one of the facts in isolation is just that, but we need to look at the whole picture here, and these are consecutive years with gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars—in fact, tens of thousands of dollars more than the average Canadian household earns in a year. That's exceptional.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Let's start off with your basic error: You're putting those two years together. We advise on the specific gifts in each year on its own. It's not cumulative and you can't add them up, so let's talk about the gift of this year. That's what we're talking about, the gift for this year.

I don't know what the value is. When I said a Ferrari, I said a million dollars, which you forgot. I specifically used that figure because it was so outlandish. What we have here is clearly a generous gift, but it's between people who are friends. I don't see why, just because they're well off, they can't exchange gifts. That's what they're doing here.

The Greens have come to Canada and they've stayed at Harrington Lake. They've travelled around the world, apparently. These are all public statements by the Prime Minister, not by me—

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

Right.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

—so you know them.

You may think it's improper or not, and that's obviously what an elector might think, but is it enough for me to have reason to believe that there is something here that needs to be investigated? No, it's not.

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

Right. I would point out that it's not public knowledge if there's been an exchange of gifts of this value, but certainly on the acceptance of a gift of that value, there's been no claim by the Prime Minister that he offered gifts of values of a similar nature, and the hospitality that you mentioned is of course all at Canadian taxpayers' expense.

We talked about last year's gift. In the context of this year's gift, did you review that gift in making your decision?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I wasn't here last year. I didn't make last year's decision.

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

But did you make this year's decision.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

This year's decision was made by somebody in my office on the basis of the facts disclosed by the Prime Minister. We came to the conclusion, obviously, that this was something.... We give advice; whatever the advice was, I can't tell you, but the consequence of the advice was that nothing was published on our website, about which you can infer whatever you want to infer.

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

The last question that I have for you is this: Do you deem it relevant that the foundation named for Mr. Trudeau's father received a sizable donation from the Greens in the context of the gift that Mr. Green also gave to Mr. Trudeau? Do you see those two as related, the gift to the Trudeau Foundation from Mr. Green and the gift to Mr. Trudeau from Mr. Green?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give a very quick response, sir.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I don't see what one has to do with the other. We are talking about gifts received by Mr. Trudeau. Things received by the Trudeau Foundation are not a gift to Mr. Trudeau.

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

Well, $180,000 to his family's charity foundation is related.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Fortier, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. von Finckenstein and Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, thank you for your work and for being with us today.

I've had the privilege of talking to your advisors, and I really appreciate the work your office does.

You were very clear about several issues, and you seem to be saying the same thing over and over, so I'd like to keep exploring some other issues we've touched on.

A week or two ago, when we had an emergency meeting about this issue, one of my concerns was about Mr. Barrett's motion. The motion, which was rejected, was about the production of documents.

I'd like us to benefit from your knowledge and experience along with your opinion on confidentiality.

Opening that Pandora's box has consequences, of course, but I'd still like to know your opinion on the impact of these provisions on confidentiality in the Conflict of Interest Act and on your and your office's ability to do your work.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

As I told your colleague, confidentiality is essential to making the system work. The current system is based primarily on people's good faith. People explain the problem, and we try to find a solution. Then we give advice, and people follow it. In every case, the act requires that some of the information be made public. The rest is confidential.

One purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act is to ensure that an individual is not in conflict of interest. Another is to encourage experienced people who have the necessary skills to seek and accept public office, and another is to facilitate exchanges between the private and public sectors.

We have two goals: to facilitate exchanges between the public and private sectors. With respect to the trip in question, our job was to ensure there was no conflict of interest. That is possible only if the interaction between our office and the individual is completely confidential.

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

I certainly understand that it's a major risk, as you said.

Without that protection, MPs and their chiefs of staff wouldn't consult you and wouldn't go see you.

Do I understand correctly?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes, that's right.

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

In this context, do you have suggestions or comments about how to strengthen that aspect of the Conflict of Interest Act or the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons? Should the act or the code be strengthened? We often wonder if we should open the door to exchanging confidential information. That came up in committee two weeks ago.

I just want to know your thoughts on that.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The current system doesn't really set out sanctions. The consequence is exposure. If someone does something that's a conflict of interest or a violation of the act, it'll be publicly exposed on our website. We'll inform the Prime Minister or the Speaker of the House of Commons. It's up to them to decide what the consequences should be.

Naturally, we'll also inform Canadians, who can make up their own minds about the consequences of a conflict of interest. It's not up to us to decide what the punishment should be. Our job is to expose the situation.

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

I think you've been very clear. Thank you for that.

I'll go to another question. Earlier, you briefly touched on how, in 2024, digital factors impact how we function as MPs. That also affects how you operate.

If we were to amend the act, would you have any specific recommendations to give us, given this trend? When the act was written, the digital realm wasn't as big a factor.