Conservative MP and ethics critic Michael Barrett is urging the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein, to probe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s lavish vacation in Jamaica.
Barrett wrote in a letter raising serious ethical concerns over Trudeau’s stay at a luxury estate owned by a family friend, businessman Peter Green.
Barrett, in the letter to von Finckenstein, questioned the Prime Minister’s stay in Jamaica. The estate where Trudeau stayed, known for its high rental costs, was provided to Trudeau and his family free of charge.
“But the Prime Minister was hardly staying in a friend’s guest room over the Christmas holidays. Quite the contrary. The National Post reports that the Prime Minister stayed at the luxurious Prospect Estate in Ocho Rios, Jamaica. Specifically, the Post found that the Prime Minister was staying at the opulent ‘Frankfort’ villa,” Barrett wrote.
“It is quite clear that the Frankfort villa has a defined commercial value, and that the corporate owners of Prospect Estate would be forgoing substantial revenue by letting the Prime Minister stay at the resort free of charge. As such, it is quite apparent that we are talking about a gift – and a very substantial gift at that,” he further emphasized.
Barrett highlighted the disparity between the gift’s value and the average Canadian’s income, saying, “For context, the estimated $84,000 commercial value for the Prime Minister’s nine nights of accommodation is greater than Canada’s median household income of $70,332.”
This is not the first time Trudeau faced criticism for his vacation trips, such as a previous trip to the same resort that cost taxpayers at least $162,000.
Throughout Barrett’s letter, he referred to the Conflict of Interest Act.
“No public office holder or member of his or her family shall accept any gift or other advantage, including from a trust, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty, or function,” reads Section 11 of the Act.
While the Conflict of Interest Act allows a public office holder to accept gifts from a friend or relative that they have paid for, Barrett argued that the vacation is more than just a simple gesture of friendship. He emphasized that staying at a resort with such high commercial value should be seen as a substantial gift.
“To the average Canadian, an $84,000 gift to a Prime Minister, regardless of whether it comes from a lifelong friend, his corporation, or a perfect stranger, could reasonably be seen as intending to influence the head of government and would lead to a compromise of his integrity,” Barrett asserted.
“Certainly, the fib told to the Canadian Press, before the vacation, that the family would cover the costs, demonstrates a compromise of personal judgment and, more broadly speaking, may well betray the Prime Minister’s own understanding that Canadians would see his accepting this vacation as a gift as compromising his integrity.”
The PMO initially defended the Prime Minister’s holiday, citing consultation with the ethics commissioner prior to the trip to ensure compliance with rules.
Barrett posed several questions to von Finckenstein.
He asked whether the Prime Minister’s Office had fully disclosed that Trudeau’s stay was at a commercial resort rather than a private residence or whether a false impression was given of Trudeau staying at a friend’s house. He asked whether the original opinion came from the basis that Trudeau’s family would “cover the cost”, as initially stated by the PMO, or whether it was from the more recent claim that it was “at no cost.” Finally, he asked whether it was disclosed how the $84,000 benefit was paid for – personally, by a friend, or by a corporation.
Barrett concluded his letter by saying that the PMO could clear up the confusion by releasing relevant correspondence with von Finckenstein’s office.
“But given the routine stonewalling by the PMO, I hope you and your office will provide clarity for the many Canadians wondering how a sitting Prime Minister accepting such a substantial gift could possibly be legal, let alone ethical.”
