MPs call on ethics commissioner to testify about Trudeau's latest Jamaican family vacation

Members of the House ethics committee have agreed to call Canada's interim ethics commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein to testify about the rules around gifts and trips, amid concerns over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's latest Jamaican vacation.

While the acting ethics official has been invited to speak specifically about the rules for "gifts, vacations, and travel," under the Conflict of Interest Act, MPs on the committee agreed that all questions related to Trudeau's holiday trip will be allowed.

It remains to be seen whether this one-time hearing could be expanded into a more fulsome study into the matter, depending on what's revealed at this upcoming meeting.

The decision to invite von Finckenstein to appear was made at a special hearing on Wednesday. He's expected to appear once Parliament and regular House of Commons committee hearings resume at the end of January. 

• Top headlines on Canadian politics, all in one place

Speaking to why he led the push for this probe, Conservative MP and ethics critic Michael Barrett said that he wanted to hear directly from von Finckenstein about whether or not he knew Trudeau would be staying for free at a villa, owned by a longtime family friend.

"The question isn't, 'Should the prime minister take vacations?' Everyone is entitled to one, and that's fine," Barrett said Wednesday. The problem is the changing narrative coming from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Barrett said. "This is incredibly problematic."

Liberal MPs agreed to call for the ethics commissioner to appear, but indicated their intent is to see him speak publicly about MPs' ethics rules to provide Canadians clarity around what is permitted and why.

The New Democrats backed the push to focus the hearing more broadly than on Trudeau's latest trip, noting that given recent examples of travel by both Liberals and Conservatives, MPs ought to explore whether the rules need to be adjusted regarding the wealthy being able to influence their political friends.

"I think it makes sense to expand the scope of the visit, not to the exclusion of the question about the Jamaica trip, because obviously, that's why we're all here... But on the other hand, to have it only be about that also means that I think we may be setting ourselves up just to get some quite unsatisfactory answers," said NDP MP Daniel Blaikie during Wednesday's meeting. 

This push for a study comes after the Official Opposition wrote to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner last week. In the letter, Barrett asked him to launch an investigation, citing concerns about Trudeau's shifting messaging regarding the cost of his 10-day family vacation.

While Trudeau's office has not confirmed the location of the prime minister's holiday, the National Post has reported the family stayed at a privately owned villa that rents for several thousand dollars per night, and is part of a resort that belongs to businessman Peter Green's family, which has decades-old ties to the Trudeau family.

In estimating that the trip would be valued at more than $80,000, Barrett suggested the offering of accommodations was a substantial gift, and challenged the premise that it was equivalent to staying at a friend's place over the holidays.

The Conservatives also tried to get the committee to order all correspondence and documents including emails, text messages, call logs, and notes, between Trudeau's office and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner regarding his travel to this estate.

That effort was defeated, with NDP and Liberal MPs expressing concerns about the precedent that would set given MPs go to von Finckenstein's office in confidence, to consult and seek advice on their conduct.

Asked Wednesday morning about the acrimony surrounding his vacation, and whether he can see how Canadians could misinterpret the gifted accommodations, Trudeau doubled down. He said in French that his family, like many others, stayed with friends over the Christmas season, and all the rules were followed.

"I really don't think that the seriousness of this has landed for Prime Minister Trudeau and I hope that, you know, hearing from the ethics commissioner will help reinforce the legal obligations that designated public office holders will have with respect to the Act," Barrett said, reacting to the prime minister's remark.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks to members of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, in Montreal, Jan. 16, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christinne Muschi

WHO PAID FOR THE PM'S TRIP?

Trudeau and his immediate family left for the Caribbean island on Boxing Day. The PMO initially said Trudeau's family would pay for their stay. But, as The Canadian Press reported, the office later clarified the accommodations were "at no cost at a location owned by family friends."

His office also stated the ethics commissioner was consulted "on these details prior to the travel to ensure that the rules were followed."

The PMO said at the time that Trudeau "continues to reimburse the equivalent of a commercial airline ticket for his personal travel and that of his family." The prime minister must travel on government aircraft per longstanding government policy.

Responding previously to Barrett's accusations of being less than transparent, PMO press secretary Mohammad Hussain said that "any allegation that we would mislead the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is categorically false," in an emailed statement.

The resort is also reportedly where Trudeau and his family vacationed over the 2022 holiday season, a trip that despite raising similar concerns among opposition MPs over its cost and location, was also cleared by the federal ethics office in advance. 

While any costs associated with his latest holiday have yet to be made public by the government, documents tabled in the House of Commons detailing the expenses related to Trudeau's 2022 Jamaica trip show it came with an approximate price tag of $162,000.

WHAT HAS THE ETHICS OFFICE SAID?

In previous statements to media, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner confirmed consultations occurred prior to the prime minister's vacation, but declined to provide specific details, citing confidentiality requirements.

However, spokesperson Melanie Rushworth noted that the ethics office "does not approve or 'clear' regulatees' vacations."

"The Office has a role only in ensuring that the gift provisions of the Act and Code are observed," she said.

This discrepancy in the wording, given the Liberals suggested the vacation was given the green light, prompted some debate during Wednesday's hearing and will likely be explored in more detail during the upcoming hearing. 

While the question has been raised as to whether this vacation would fall under the section of the Conflict of Interest Act that states no public office-holder can accept any gift or other advantage that "might reasonably" appear to have been given to influence them, the Act does give some exception for family and friends.