Honourable senators, I am rising to give my full support to Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain’s Motion No. 216, which proposes that the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators be authorized to re‑examine the issue of sponsored travel in the context of foreign interference in Canada.

Since my appointment to the Senate, I have felt that the lack of oversight and transparency regarding sponsored travel raises significant ethical issues and tarnishes Parliament’s reputation. Senators are free to go on missions abroad paid for by a country or lobby group, as long as they fill out a short form that really does not provide very many details at all about the reasons for the trip. I want to make it clear that this sponsored travel is permitted under the Code that senators created for themselves in 2005.

This issue is of concern to me because I was a journalist for 25 years and, as such, I was subject to strict ethical standards that I then applied in my decisions as the Radio-Canada ombudsman.

When I arrived in the Senate, my unease led me to testify in camera before the Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators Committee in 2019 about the risks posed by this type of travel.

At that time, we did not have the necessary consensus among senators to strengthen the rules.

In the interest of being fully transparent, last summer, I accepted an internship paid for by the United Nations. Also, last month, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK reimbursed me for my plane ticket to London, where I presented Bill S-211 to combat modern slavery, a bill I sponsored.

I felt that the risk of conflict of interest in both those cases was non-existent. Even so, I don’t think it should be up to me to make that judgment; rather, it should be up to a neutral third party.

Senator Saint-Germain calculated that, over the past seven years, senators have taken 113 sponsored trips abroad, and 16 of those trips were to places with an authoritarian regime, as defined by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This is particularly worrying in light of the latest revelations about foreign interference in Canada and the work of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which notes that all-expenses-paid trips to foreign countries are among the incentives deployed by foreign actors.

Nonetheless, sponsored travel is still permitted in several other Commonwealth parliaments and jurisdictions.

Let’s start with the House of Commons, which had a record number of expenses in 2023: 93 sponsored trips worth $847,000. That’s almost four times more money than five years ago. According to a National Post investigation, the two biggest sponsors of all-expenses-paid missions are the Government of Taiwan and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Nevertheless, on a hopeful note, according to the House of Commons Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, during the first six months of 2024, significantly fewer MPs — 12 in total — accepted overseas sponsored travel as revelations about foreign interference in Canada were increasing. Some MPs have also become more aware of the issue, as the Ethics Committee in the House is due to consider it. The sponsor of the motion, NDP MP Matthew Green, considers that flying around the globe at other people’s expense is a bad look for members of Parliament.

There has also been a welcome change, in my opinion, in The Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct that came into force on July 1, 2023, and has, no doubt, had an influence on the decreasing number of sponsored travel this year. Ottawa-registered lobbyists seeking to influence us are no longer allowed to offer us fully paid trips. The limit on gifts is set at $40 or $200 dollars annually. However, entirely sponsored trips by foreign entities remain authorized.

How do we compare with other Commonwealth parliaments? In the United Kingdom and Australia, it is more or less the same way of doing things. It is left to the parliamentarians themselves to decide whether to accept sponsored travel. In practice, however, the United Kingdom is innovative in adopting an objective approach when the question of sponsored travel arises. The question to be answered is this: Would a reasonable member of the public — someone impartial and well informed — be led to believe that sponsored travel would influence a member of the House of Lords in the fulfillment of her or his duties?

Rose Whiffen, spokeswoman for Transparency International says:

. . . There is a clear risk that overseas trips funded by foreign governments could give rise to the perception — or reality — that the judgement of parliamentarians is influenced by the generosity of their hosts.

As for the United States, the same discretion applies to sponsored travel by a foreign government, but here is an interesting fact: In the event of privately sponsored travel, senators must obtain prior written approval from the Select Committee on Ethics. I think it would be useful to see how it works concretely.

Let’s get back to our Senate. Under section 18 of our code, we are free to accept trips paid for by any government, lobby group or corporation. Under our code, senators aren’t even required to disclose the total cost of these all-expenses-paid trips, including any gifts received.

Section 18 is an anachronism in a society where requirements regarding real and apparent conflicts of interest are increasingly stringent. Many of these free trips are offered to us precisely because we are in a position to exert influence favourable to foreign interests. This practice undermines Canadians’ confidence in the institution of the Senate. I’ve seen it anecdotally on several occasions.

We also too often forget that an apparent conflict of interest is just as important as a real conflict of interest in the eyes of the public. Our code requires senators, and I quote:

(c) to arrange their private affairs so that foreseeable real or apparent conflicts of interest may be prevented from arising, but if such a conflict does arise, to resolve it in a way that protects the public interest.

This refers only to private affairs. Perhaps this section should be reviewed and expanded.

I would also point out that I believe the Ethics Committee should review section 19 of the code. It states, and I quote: “. . . sponsored travel . . . [is] deemed to have received the consent of the Senate thereto for all purposes.”

That is a pretty important test to apply. With the consent of the Senate, we would all have consented to all sponsored travel. Personally, I’m uncomfortable with that. Democracy is weakened when the wealthiest members of society have privileged access to government and to parliamentarians and can disproportionately influence public policy and positions. That’s why we have rules about political donations and election financing, and that is also why they have been tightened up over the years.

In January 2019, former Canadian diplomat Scott Gilmore wrote in Maclean’s magazine that, in his view, sponsored travel for Canadian parliamentarians amounts to bribery. Those are strong words, but here’s his argument: If an official at Global Affairs Canada were, despite rules to the contrary, to accept such a trip paid for by a foreign country or a lobby group linked to that foreign government, the trip would rightly be considered a bribe intended to influence that diplomat’s opinions. Why should it be any different for a senator?

Obviously, we have no way to scientifically measure the impact of these sponsored trips on legislative activity or on positions that are favourable to foreign interests. I’m aware of that. Nor can we lump all of this travel in the same basket after taking a closer look. For example, our ethics officer’s reports make no distinction between an invitation from a university in Canada or elsewhere and a mission paid for by a foreign government or lobby group.

I have no easy answers to offer. As I see it, a country with Canada’s means obviously can’t allow these parliamentarians to travel on foreign powers’ dime. The Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators is well placed to undertake an extensive exploration and draw the necessary distinctions between what is acceptable and what is not. Without the public’s trust, institutions like ours have a hard time holding onto their credibility. Many of us are deeply committed to the reform that made the Senate a more independent chamber. In my opinion, strengthening our code of ethics is another way of showing greater independence of thought in relation to anyone seeking to unduly influence us. Thank you.