Pursuant to notice of June 20, 2024, moved:

That the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest be authorized to examine and report on amendments to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators with respect to sponsored travel, and to consider whether senators accepting sponsored travel continues to be appropriate in the current environment relating to foreign interference, whether that sponsorship is by foreign states or other third parties, including, but not limited to, corporations, lobbyists or non‑governmental organizations;

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or the code, when the committee is dealing with this matter, it be authorized to meet in public if it so decides and a senator who is not a member of the committee not attend unless doing so as a witness and at the invitation of the committee; and

That the committee present its final report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2025.

She said: Honourable senators, the Senate cannot remain indifferent to the risks that foreign interference now poses to political institutions and democracy in this country.

The Five Eyes, the allied intelligence services of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, say that this worrisome reality is affecting Western democracies in particular. Canadian intelligence and security authorities, as well as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, all confirm that Canada has not been spared.

In its June 2024 special report, NSICOP clearly states that parliamentarians and their staff are major targets for foreign interference. I will read an excerpt from the special report:

 . . . foreign interference activities in Canada in the period under review —

 — meaning, since 2018 —

 — were conducted predominantly through person-to-person interaction . . . . Foreign actors seek to cultivate long-term relationships with Canadians who they believe may be useful in advancing their interests, with a view to having the Canadian act in favour of the foreign actor and against Canada’s interests.

The committee members mention the use of certain inducements, including “all-expenses-paid trips to the foreign country.”

If foreign interference is what ignited my desire to table this motion, let’s not be mistaken, and let’s be clear: Despite this situation, it is important for the Senate to free itself from the numerous other consequences of sponsored travels, and it’s important that it does so now.

However, this situation of active interference adds an urgency to the need to talk today about the appropriateness of the sponsored travels we are offered, which, over time, have multiplied.

Let me now present to you what these trips have amounted to since 2013. Unfortunately, this will only be a partial account, since public information on these trips is deleted when a senator retires or resigns. We, therefore, only have information on senators still in office.

According to what was publicly disclosed by the Senate Ethics Officer, apart from the 45 sponsored trips within the borders of Canada, which are not targeted by this motion, 119 senator trips took place abroad, and most of them were sponsored by a foreign entity or a proxy.

Sixteen of these trips took place in what is considered to be an “authoritarian regime” by the definition of the Economist Intelligence Unit. Even if the ethical issues at stake with sponsored trips are not only in visiting such countries, we must admit that a parliamentarian being hosted by authoritarian-led countries could end up in delicate and tedious situations.

Furthermore, only one senator who decides to engage in these types of situations could embarrass the whole of the institution. Even over a 10-year period, the number of trips sponsored by foreign agents that were offered to and accepted by senators is quite significant.

I will now expose what I believe to be the main ethical issues related to sponsored travels.

The first one is being placed in an “I owe you” situation. When a senator accepts such sponsorships, their flights, accommodations and meals, notably, are paid for by a foreign country or a dummy corporation. In exchange, the senator gives their time, attention and influence to specific questions that are of great interest to the trip’s sponsor. Like it or not, every parliamentarian who receives such treatment becomes indebted to the sponsoring state or corporation. This indebtedness can affect their work and their objectivity. This is what is commonly called a “quid pro quo,” a favour for a favour.

The indebtedness is even more embarrassing and inappropriate when we consider that the Senate — and, more generally, the Canadian Parliament — does not have an equivalent to these sponsored trips. Neither chamber has a program or funds allocated for this. Besides, such a practice would be inappropriate, given the role of the Senate and considering how it would impact taxpayers.

I am not here trying to place blame on anyone, but on a few occasions I have noticed some of our colleagues take stands — for example, through a statement and even through a Senate public bill — that clearly revealed this indebtedness.

The second ethical issue I see is finding oneself in a position of conflict of interest or loyalty. Intimately related to the first issue, there is a potential for conflict of interest or loyalty, whether real or perceived. This could have serious negative effects on the public’s opinion of our country’s parliamentarians and democratic institutions.

Can a senator who has travelled at a sponsor’s expense and followed a program designed and overseen by said sponsor separate fact from fiction and distinguish information from misinformation? Do they know the objective points of view of all parties involved? Can the senator really form an enlightened opinion based on a meeting program created to show the host’s perspective in a favourable light? Our code of ethics states that senators are expected:

. . . to fulfil their public duties while upholding the highest standards so as to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Senator and in the Senate; and

(c) to arrange their private affairs so that foreseeable real or apparent conflicts of interest may be prevented from arising . . .

This is from the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, paragraphs 2(2)(b) and (c).

There is an insidious nature to these trips that seek to promote the interests of the host countries — interests that don’t always align with Canada’s.

A third and not insignificant issue I see — which stems from the first two — involves breaching Canada’s foreign policy, which is the prerogative of the executive power, not the legislative power. Parliamentary diplomacy must complement and be consistent with the country’s foreign policy, not hinder it. In international affairs, it is essential that Canada speak with one voice when it comes to committing and fulfilling its international obligations.

It is also possible that in specific situations, a position taken following a trip sponsored by a sovereign state could infringe upon the principle of international law regarding non-interference in domestic affairs. This principle is included in the United Nations Charter, to which Canada adheres as a member of the UN.

The risk of infringing on Canada’s foreign policy is further increased when sponsored travel is not submitted to the usual audits and briefings from Global Affairs Canada. What are Canada’s positions on and interests in the matter? As part of sponsored travel, parliamentarians follow a program established by the host country or the corporation acting as a proxy. Parliamentarians are also potentially vulnerable to a foreign state’s propaganda.

Allow me to now take a few minutes to focus on our role in parliamentary diplomacy through the Parliament of Canada official channels. Parliamentarian diplomacy, as former Senate and House Speakers Noël A. Kinsella and Peter Milliken have described it, is mainly a builder of relationships and partnerships. It is efficient in the development of networks between policy-makers and can help with benchmarking and opening dialogues.

While all of this is beneficial and a strong complement to our international presence, it does not replace the targeted and thought-out actions of professional diplomats. At its core, foreign policy is the responsibility of the government — the executive.

Parliamentary diplomacy is only relevant if it is carried out in accordance with the government’s foreign policy, which aligns with our national defence interests.

MP and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons Chris d’Entremont and I co-chair the Joint Interparliamentary Council, commonly referred to as the JIC. The JIC oversees 12 parliamentary associations and four interparliamentary groups that coordinate delegations that represent Parliament at various meetings of MPs and senators around the world. The objective is to meet with parliamentarians from other countries and discuss issues of strategic interest to us as Canadian parliamentarians. Above all, the goal is interparliamentary cooperation.

In fiscal year 2022-23, 63 delegations represented Parliament at meetings held in 31 countries. In all, 79 senators and 183 MPs took part in these delegations.

Furthermore, unlike sponsored travel, all parliamentarians belonging to these associations who participate in official delegations receive exhaustive analyses and reports, along with security support that includes cybersecurity, to make sure they are properly briefed and well prepared to represent Canada and its Parliament effectively.

Senators have other opportunities to travel on official business for standing Senate committees, for example, and they also get travel points for trips to the United States, specifically New York City and Washington, or for international events held in Canada.

For colleagues who are interested in parliamentary diplomacy, the best way to take part is through these official channels, not sponsored travel. These diplomatic opportunities do not raise any ethical issues and will not sow any doubts about a parliamentarian’s loyalty to our country. In fact, they offer us a special channel for promoting democracy and good governance and cooperating with other parliamentarians to strengthen those values both here and abroad.

Another concerning factor is the serious lack of accountability and transparency in our current reporting system. Under the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, senators must declare to the Senate Ethics Officer, or SEO, their participation in a sponsored trip. However, under subsection 18(2), only the name of the person or organization paying for the trip, the destinations, the purpose and duration of the trip, whether or not a guest was also sponsored and the general nature of the benefits received must be declared. Furthermore, this feedback is given for information purposes only, and the SEO has no role or ability to identify possible conflicts of interest or discourage a senator from going on a particular trip.

Even worse, under section 19, sponsored trips are deemed to have received the consent of the Senate thereto for all purposes. This means that under the current code of ethics, all senators are deemed to have consented to all sponsored trips. This is deeply problematic and essentially means that if only one senator is not rigorous in his choice of destinations, the whole Senate can be deemed complicit.

Another dimension that is inappropriate — even inconsistent — is that the code clearly states that a senator cannot accept a gift with a value over $500. However, there is no problem in accepting trips with accommodations worth thousands of dollars.

It is also worth noting that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions states that “. . . consistent with the Conflict of Interest Act, public office holders must always place the public interest before private interests. . . .”

We need to seriously rethink these practices and bring them up to par with best practices and the highest contemporary ethical standards.

As you can attest, there are a lot of flaws with the current state of sponsored travel for senators. Does it mean that all forms of international sponsored travel should be outright banned? This is a question that I would defer to the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators to address and make recommendations on.

There is room for interpretation and, potentially, to maintaining strict exceptions. The issue lies with those situations where senators put themselves in a position of liability which, in turn, influences their work as parliamentarians. Some trips have no influence on our work.

If this motion is adopted, I will count on the expertise of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee to do this interpretation, establish the exceptions that do not place senators in positions of liability and recommend them to the Senate. Notably, this can be the case when we are invited to contribute to an academic activity or recognized professional association that only covers our expenses without any other remuneration.

For the sake of transparency, I will admit that since I was first appointed to the Senate in 2016, I’ve been invited to take part in four sponsored trips. I declined all but one of those invitations. I accepted an invitation from the Association des ombudsmans et médiateurs de la Francophonie, or AOMF, which invited me to Brussels for two days to give a speech at its biennial congress, which coincided with the 20th anniversary of its creation. I saw no risk of a conflict of interest. This is a multilateral association that is recognized and subsidized by the Canadian government and that is made up of over 60 member states, including three provinces, specifically New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, which also fund it, as the Government of Canada does. I was invited on this trip to take part in the official discussions and to receive an award recognizing my decade of contributions to the AOMF.

My participation in the AOMF’s biennial conference was in no way related to my role as a senator and had no impact or influence on any future legislation. No quid pro quo was expected of me, other than my professional contribution to the deliberations.

Outside strict valuable exceptions, I believe that sponsored travel as it happens now does not befit the contemporary Senate. Modernization is not a process limited to speaking times, bells or recognized parliamentarian groups. It also applies to our ethics and standards. I would even argue that this is more important to Canadians than the way we organize our work.

In recent years, the Senate has been ushered toward a new era of modernity. The ethical and appropriate management of sponsored trips is a further step in this modernization. What this motion proposes is a concrete action that is easily achievable by the will of this chamber.

With the many perks, accolades and distractions offered to senators, it can be easy to forget what we are truly nominated to this institution for. Our first and main role is to study and vote on bills. To that end, we must be present in this chamber and participate in its debates in addition to scrutinizing legislation and public policies in committee. This must always take priority over international parliamentary travel despite how relevant the official parliamentary diplomacy we are invited to contribute to via our membership in either one of our twelve recognized parliamentarian associations or four interparliamentary groups may be.

If we adopt this motion, the Senate of Canada would not be the only parliamentary institution to reflect on this issue. In fact, in December of 2023, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics passed a motion calling for the end of sponsored travel. This motion is set to be debated at the Board of Internal Economy in the fall. This proposal was applauded by the federal lobbying commissioner as well as parliamentary watchdogs.

Also of interest to us is the 2018 Transparency International report entitled In Whose Interest? Analysing how corrupt and repressive regimes seek influence and legitimacy through engagement with UK Parliamentarians.

Here is an excerpt of this report:

It is imperative that when parliamentarians undertake engagements overseas their independence is beyond question. At present, there is a clear risk that overseas trips sponsored either directly or indirectly by corrupt and repressive regimes may present the perception or reality that parliamentarians’ judgements and actions are influenced by the malign intent of their hosts, which could also constitute a bribery offence.

This point was reiterated in another Transparency International brief published in March 2024:

There is a gap in the law which allows both foreign governments — including those with hostile or other malign intent — to curry favour with UK politicians through funding overseas visits. . . .

The U.K. Parliament has yet to act on this issue.

As such, the Senate of Canada has an opportunity to become a model to follow and a pioneer. I believe we should take advantage of this opportunity.

On a slightly different but related topic, the issue of sponsored travel also raises questions of our relationship to lobbying and the permissiveness of our legislation governing lobbying. I also believe this is something the Senate must investigate especially considering that, ever since 2016, the lobbying of senators has significantly increased due to our new-found independence. That said, this is a debate for another day.

Colleagues, in conclusion, if this motion is adopted, the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators will be given the mandate to suggest amendments to the code in order to regulate all aspects related to sponsored travel and to present these suggestions no later than March 31, 2025. I will remind you that this committee is not dissolved when a parliament is dissolved.

I will rely on the committee members’ expertise for the answers to these questions and on how to proceed in the future. In my view, it is clear that the risks of accepting sponsored trips from foreign states — directly or through a proxy — damage our reputation and should be banned from Senate practices.

Regarding foreign interference, there are many things that are beyond our control. However, restricting sponsored travel is tangible action that is within our purview. Considering the current environment, it is action that we must take without delay by adopting this motion.

I also suggest that between now and the review by our Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators and the adoption of its report, we convene a moratorium on accepting such sponsored travel. I’m appealing to every senator’s forbearance.

It would be to our credit.

I’ve no doubt that Canadians would appreciate our restraint.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Downe, you have a question?

Yes, would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

With pleasure, senator.

Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, for raising this important issue. You made the argument as I understood it that notwithstanding what the other countries are doing — and you referenced the Five Eyes and foreign interference at the beginning of your speech. All the other Five Eyes currently allow sponsored travel.

Setting that aside, your argument is, “Let’s get ahead of the curve.” You mentioned some trips you were on that were all allowed under sponsored travel, but times change, and the question is: Is this something we should be doing sooner rather than later?

My concern is not so much foreign interference in changing views, because the people here are very experienced. My concern would be public perception of sponsored travel.

To that end, I’m wondering if we should revert to the system we used to have in the Senate. The Five Eyes currently allow sponsored travel. They also allow international travel by parliamentarians which is paid for by their parliament. We used to have that in the Senate; we no longer do. Should we restore that so that people can have the experience and broaden their perspectives on international affairs? With the exception of Senator Peter Boehm and a few others, most of us have worked provincially and nationally, but very few of us have done so internationally. I think this would make for better senators.

Do you agree the Senate should also have funded international travel? Again, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration used to have to approve it; you couldn’t just go anywhere — you had to make a case for it, but it was funded by the Senate out of your own budget.

Thank you, Senator Downe, for your question and your comments, and for highlighting the fact that I recognize that, currently, sponsored travel is allowed and that I didn’t blame anyone. This is not my perspective; it is allowed. Times have changed, as you’ve said.

To one of your points, with regard to the Five Eyes countries and other countries, many are currently reconsidering allowing parliamentarians to travel on sponsored trips. Many others are even stricter than Canada with regard to obtaining permission and making sure there’s no potential conflict of loyalty or other specific aspects. I have France in mind, which has a very strict code of ethics. It would be more difficult for a French parliamentarian to travel in these specific conditions, although it is allowed.

I will also defer to our Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators to further suggest to us, perhaps, some criteria, restrictions or even exceptions to prohibitions, if we go there.

Regarding your point related to parliamentary diplomacy — and I referred to it — both chambers of Parliament currently have access to parliamentary trips. As you’ve seen, 83 senators have travelled over the last year on parliamentary trips. I believe those are more focused and relevant to our work as parliamentarians. We’re not diplomats, we’re not members of the government and we’re not responsible, first and foremost, for the foreign policy of the government, although we are contributing to it.

You didn’t use the word that I will use on your behalf: I would share the frustration of some colleagues in some smaller groups who have fewer opportunities. I would say that, even with proportionality, we all have fewer opportunities than we would wish to have. The right question or way to act is to see how we can find a fair and balanced way to have more parliamentarians savvy with benchmarking, with good governance and with good practices in other countries in order to really cooperate in bringing our own expertise while learning from them on matters that are related to governance, democracy and human rights, or matters related to us.

On that, I concur with you that we should have a further look in the Senate regarding where we could do more and what we could do best in matters of parliamentary diplomacy.

My last point is that I do not agree — though it is not what you’ve said — that although we don’t have all the opportunities that we would like to have within the realm of parliamentary diplomacy, we should agree to go on sponsored trips.

Thanks again for your question.

Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, for your response.

I have a small point: If the recommendation, at the end of the day, is to ban sponsored travel, I think it should also be banned within Canada. The very same principles apply. Who is funding it and why? Some might be very good reasons, and some might be front organizations for somebody else. If we’re banning it, we’re banning it.

I want to return to my key argument: Banning it would leave a vacuum. Every other parliament in the Five Eyes countries has funding for parliamentarians to attend international sessions. Again, they have to appear before a committee — in our case, it would be the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — and make the case: Have you spoken about this topic? Have you been involved? You have to justify the trip. The expenses are public. They are paid out of your budget, if you have that budget.

That’s what we used to have, and we should restore that if we’re ending sponsored travel.

I’ll give you a personal example. A few years ago, I surprised myself when I was elected as Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and IMF. I was the only North American vice-chair. Their headquarters are in Paris. All my colleagues from around the world — including Morocco and all the other countries from which there have been vice-chairs — would go to the meetings in Paris. For me to attend, I had to pay for it personally since there was no avenue to attend in my capacity as a senator. That is a gap that I think we should address. Again, it’s not any additional funding; it has to be in your existing office budget, or you can’t go.

Do you share my view that this should be studied parallel to the motion you put before us today?

Thank you for the question and comments.

I concur with you on your first point in relation to banning these types of trips in Canada when they are sponsored by a foreign country. I have checked: Of the 45 trips that we have in Canada, none of them has been sponsored by a foreign country or proxy. I would make an exception for all the embassies and consulates in Canada. They’re doing the work they have to do, and our diplomats do the same internationally. That is an exception.

I also concur with you that we need to revisit whether it is the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators on this side; I don’t believe so. We need to revisit internally what we could do in order to allow us to further contribute to parliamentary diplomacy. I know the House of Commons is also looking at additional ways to further fulfill this responsibility that we have, which is not our first one, but it is one of our responsibilities.

Essentially, this is what we will have to decide: How do we work in a way that will allow us to better contribute and obtain more opportunities while still fulfilling our main duties in the Senate? There is another exception I will consider: In no way is this motion calling for any restriction on standing Senate committee members travelling abroad. This is clearly another question.

Just for clarity, I don’t care who sponsored the trips in Canada. If we’re banning sponsored travel, anything sponsored in front of us should be banned, including anything within Canada. That’s my view.

I agree with you, but you will also have noticed that I said that we have an issue with some lobbyists. I will go as far as stating today that sometimes an invitation from a foreign country would have the promotion of tourism as a goal, which is, from my standpoint, not very close to foreign interference. However, I see some sponsored trips where, one day, we will have people who are pro-environment sponsoring a senator, and, another day, it’s people who are pro‑fossil fuels.

I believe this is also another issue that, at the very least, raises the perception issue of our impartiality and objectivity. This is another key question that we should address, but the motion for today is not targeting these types of sponsored trips.

I would like to point out that you named a country, senator, while I didn’t name any, and that it is perfectly legitimate for countries to try to sponsor travel. Also, regardless of the country involved, that is not the issue. You also said that the main problem with accepting these trips is not that it is a conflict of interest, but rather a perceived conflict of interest. Personally, I believe that these trips are often an actual conflict of interest. When we see a senator make a statement in favour of a certain country or situation, that is a problem. We have even seen a bill introduced after a sponsored trip, so I think that we are indeed talking about more than just a perceived conflict of interest. Your question concerns the best way of ascertaining the identity of the real sponsor.

There are several official sources of information, including the Economist Intelligence Unit, and when you look at the agenda, you can see the nature of the contacts and the people being met. When we do a bit of research, it is often easy to identify the proxies, because we know their sources of funding and what positions they have taken. I’m not saying that it is easy in every case, but it often is.

My primary concern about this motion deals with what I see as the flawed rules that are set in the motion for the Ethics Committee’s study.

Senator Saint-Germain, your December 2023 motion on the question of privilege ended with nearly identical wording. You sought in that case to refer that matter to the Ethics Committee, too, and that motion stated:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, when the committee is dealing with the case of privilege:

1. it be authorized to meet in public if it so decides; and

2. a senator who is not a member of the committee not attend unless doing so as a witness and at the invitation of the committee.

Meanwhile, the motion you’re promoting today ends with the same two, I’d say, highly problematic provisions regarding the Ethics Committee. It states:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or the code, when the committee is dealing with this matter, it be authorized to meet in public if it so decides and a senator who is not a member of the committee not attend unless doing so as a witness and at the invitation of the committee . . . .

It’s a complete cut-and-paste job from your previous motion. In my December 7, 2023, Senate speech, where I expressed my grave and serious concerns about those two clauses of that motion, I stated:

It is shocking that this is even being proposed by the Independent Senators Group leader. This is not an open, transparent process in the least. Committee hearings of this nature should not be held in secret. . . .

Instead, Senator Saint-Germain’s motion would send this to the Ethics Committee, which rarely, if ever, meets in public. This lack of openness and transparency is especially problematic in light of the clause that follows, which prohibits any other senator who is not a member of the Ethics Committee from attending unless they are a witness and are invited to attend by the committee.

Senator Saint-Germain, why is your motion on this important matter once again demanding secrecy rather than openness and transparency? Why would you not want senators who are not members of the Ethics Committee to be able to participate in, attend and even watch these Ethics Committee hearings? Then they could perhaps contribute to and maybe even strengthen this key study. I remind you that other senators who are not members of that committee could not watch or even read transcripts of in camera Senate committee meetings.

Thank you, Senator Batters, for your question. I’m glad you agree that allowing the Ethics Committee to meet in public is really a good opportunity and a good decision to make in this situation. As you know, the committee members can decide to invite as a witness any senator, and they can do so in public with any senator or any group.

As for your specific question related to senators who could not attend committee meetings, I can tell you that I have worked with the clerk, as we always do for these motions, and this is what has been recommended. I do believe there are good reasons for it.

But in a nutshell, having the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, exceptionally in this case, be allowed to have public sittings, I think, is very positive. Nothing will prevent them, if they so wish, from inviting any senator. Any senator can be a witness if he or she so wishes. That senator can reach out to the committee and ask to be a witness in public.

There are also sometimes privacy reasons for the committee to ask some senators to appear as witnesses in camera.

I would defer to the good judgment of the committee, the members of which I really do respect. Each group and caucus is represented, as you know, within the committee. Thank you.

First of all, with respect to that question of privilege, all of those Ethics Committee meetings — and there have been several — have been held in camera. No senators have been invited to appear; I certainly have not. It’s solely at the discretion of the committee. The committee can decide to hold a meeting in public. It’s at the committee’s invitation and not by someone expressing that they want to attend, as I certainly did in that matter.

My second question is this: In your speech, you said the motion would not deal with sponsored travel within Canada. Where does your motion actually say that such an exclusion exists? There isn’t anything mentioned in the motion about international travel. The motion states:

. . . with respect to sponsored travel, and to consider whether senators accepting sponsored travel continues to be appropriate in the current environment relating to foreign interference, whether that sponsorship is by foreign states or other third parties, including, but not limited to, corporations, lobbyists or non-governmental organizations . . . .

Where does your motion state that the sponsored travel within Canada would not be included?

Thank you. On your first point, I do believe that the Ethics Committee deserves the same autonomy to manage its work as any other standing Senate committee. I would defer to the very savvy and professional members of that committee to organize their work and to decide if and when they need to hold public hearings in this case.

The motion — you are right — is about international trips sponsored by foreign entities. Foreign entities could sometimes, perhaps, sponsor trips within Canada, but I had looked at the list of all sponsored trips over the last 10 years, all those that were not deleted on the Senate Ethics Officer’s website, and none have been sponsored within Canada by any foreign state. If we find such a situation eventually, it would certainly be covered by the motion. This is theoretical because, in reality, there are no internationally sponsored trips by foreign states in Canada.

I wanted to point out that I think you would need to actually look at amending that because it says “. . . by foreign states or by other third parties, including . . . .” I don’t think your wording is precise on that point.

I referred many times in my speech to proxies or their partners or associates, so that is what I mean. Directly or indirectly foreign states and then their proxies, who are obviously associated with foreign states.