Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his holiday vacation in Jamaica as a stay with friends while MPs on a committee voted unanimously to hear from the ethics commissioner on the matter of gifts, vacations, and travel for elected officials.
“Like so many Canadian families, we stayed over at friends for the Christmas vacation,” Mr. Trudeau said in French during a press conference on Jan. 17. “All rules were followed.”
The National Post reported earlier this month that Mr. Trudeau and his family stayed in a $ 9,300-a-night luxury Jamaican villa at no cost, for an estimated total of $84,000 for nine nights. The villa is part of the Prospect Estate resort owned by the Green family, longtime Trudeau family friends. The Epoch Times has not independently verified the information.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has provided contradictory information about the trip, initially saying Mr. Trudeau would pay for the vacation. The PMO then said the prime minister was staying at a location owned by family friends, and not with the family. A later version was similar to the account given by Mr. Trudeau on Jan. 17 that he was “staying with family friends at no cost.”
The PMO also said the ethics commissioner had been consulted prior to the trip.
MPs are now seeking to hear about the matter directly from interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein.
The House of Commons ethics committee voted unanimously on Jan. 17 to invite Mr. von Finckenstein to discuss travel, vacations, and gift rules for elected officials in the context of the prime minister’s recent trip.
Conservatives had initiated the Jan. 17 special committee meeting during the House holiday break to discuss the issue.
Conservative MP Michael Barrett, his party’s ethics critic, sought to have Mr. von Finkelstein appear to specifically discuss the Jamaica vacation, but Liberals brought an amendment forward to not focus on the prime minister’s trip but instead the at-large issue of gift, vacation, and travel rules for office holders.
“We started with the prime minister saying he was paying for it and then saying that it was being gifted to him. That’s a remarkable gift; $84,000,” he said, adding it may be worthwhile for the committee to study whether it’s “ever appropriate” for a prime minister to accept gifts worth that amount.
Tory MP Larry Brock said he didn’t think the committee would be discussing the matter if the PMO had been “upfront” with Canadians from the start.
“This was a really non-issue from the get-go if the prime minister and his office were completely transparent as to who sourced this particular vacation,” he said.
NDP MP Daniel Blaikie also raised concerns about the “contradictory” messaging from the PMO and said he couldn’t help being “struck” about the cost of the vacation, which is “well outside the contemplation of most Canadians.”
After Mr. Barrett’s amended motion was adopted by the committee, he tabled a new motion seeking to obtain all records being held by the PMO and the ethics commissioner with regard to the prime minister’s vacation. All other parties opposed it.
Mr. Blaikie explained his opposition by saying that it’s already clear that the PMO is “doing a bad job of being accountable to Canadians ... We don’t need to see the emails and potentially undermine the confidence that members have in the office in order to be able to establish that.”
A date for Mr. von Finckenstein to appear has not been set but it likely won’t occur until after the House of Commons returns from break on Jan. 29.
The Conflict of Interest Act allows officeholders to receive gifts from friends and relatives and they don’t have to be disclosed to the ethics commissioner. A friend is interpreted by the commissioner as someone with a “close bond of friendship, a feeling of affection or a special kinship.”
