Story · 2026-10-15
Mary Ng's office hired her friend's PR firm. Twice.
She took part in the first decision and made the second, and never recused. The Ethics Commissioner found she broke the conflict law. She stayed in cabinet until March 2025.
In March 2019 and again in April 2020, the office of Mary Ng, then Small Business minister, paid Pomp & Circumstance, the public relations firm co-founded by her friend of almost twenty years, to train her for the media. The second time she phoned the friend herself, and the contract went to the firm without competing bids. In December 2022 the Ethics Commissioner found she took part in the first decision and made the second without recusing herself, contrary to the Conflict of Interest Act. She stayed in cabinet until 14 March 2025.
Mary Ng, MP for Markham–Thornhill 2017 to 2025; Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion from July 2018, with International Trade from November 2019, to March 2025
On 30 or 31 March 2020, as the pandemic shut the country, the Small Business minister picked up the phone. Mary Ng called Amanda Alvaro, a friend of almost twenty years who had been her campaign spokesperson and who runs the PR firm Pomp & Circumstance. That evening Ng emailed her own communications director: she had asked Alvaro to help make video for small businesses. On 8 April her office signed a $16,950 contract with Alvaro's firm. There were no competing bids.
It was the second time. A year earlier, with no emergency, her office had paid the same firm $5,840 for media training, and Alvaro trained the minister herself, at the firm's Toronto office. Her office's two contracts came to $22,790 of public money. Counting a third, with the office of another minister, the firm's federal contracts on the record come to $47,786. In between, her office had bought the same kind of training from another firm. Her own department later told MPs the firm "cannot be considered the sole-source provider" of the work; the request to use it came from her office.
The sum is small. The rule is not about size: a minister stays out of a decision that pays a friend. The Ethics Commissioner found she took part in the first decision and made the second, and that she had "ample time" to consider recusal or a screen. She stayed in cabinet until 14 March 2025.
Our read
Our read: Mary Ng took part in both decisions to pay her friend's firm with public money, and should have stepped aside both times. The Ethics Commissioner found she took part in the 2019 decision and made the 2020 one, and that she contravened subsection 6(1) and section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. She has accepted it herself.
The pandemic is her best defence, and it fails on the dates. The first contract came in March 2019, a year before COVID, with no rush and no reason. The Commissioner said that precedent "prevents any consideration of extenuating circumstances". In between, her office bought the same training from another firm. It knew how to hire someone who wasn't her friend.
The 2020 contract went to the firm without competing bids, at a value under the $25,000 threshold where, she told the Commissioner, Treasury Board policy requires them. The disclosure record for it had its solicitation procedure misstated until it was corrected. Asked at committee whether taxpayers should be paid back, she did not say yes. She stayed in cabinet until 14 March 2025.
The safeguards she pointed to were not safeguards. Her department put the limit for a contract without bids at $40,000, said the firm "cannot be considered the sole-source provider", and said the request came from her office. Its contracting officers do not look for conflicts. The Act's administrative monetary penalty, at most $500, is not set for the sections she broke. The only check on a minister paying a friend was the minister.
Asked the total of her firm's sole-source federal work, her friend said "I don't have that number in front of me"; asked "What would you guess", she said "somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000". Her answer did not say what it counted. The two contracts whose records give the procedure as non-competitive come to $41,946, from two ministers' offices; a third, for Ng's office in 2019, stands apart, its procedure not quoted in any record read.
The amount is small. The lesson a minister takes from it is not: the price of having a friend's firm paid twice from the public purse is an apology.
The story
Mary Ng met Amanda Alvaro in 2003, when both worked in the office of Ontario's education minister. The Ethics Commissioner found they are friends within the meaning of the Act. When Ng first ran for Parliament in 2017, Alvaro was her campaign spokesperson. Alvaro co-founded Pomp & Circumstance in 2015, a PR agency that mostly serves private clients.
In July 2018 Ng joined cabinet as Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion. In January 2019, Pomp & Circumstance did public relations work for another minister's office, at Women and Gender Equality Canada, under a non-competitive contract of $24,996 dated after the work was done, on 4 April 2019. On 1 February 2019 an employee in her ministerial office contacted Alvaro about media training for the minister. On 26 March 2019 her office signed a contract with Pomp & Circumstance for $5,840. Her chief of staff, Jason Easton, who had known of the friendship since 2018, signed its financial authority. Three days later Alvaro and her co-founder trained Ng at the firm's office in Toronto, then trained her staff in Ottawa. The communications plan that followed went to her chief of staff, her communications director, and Ng's personal email address.
Asked about it in 2022, Ng told the Commissioner she had no recollection of the contract, the circumstances around it, or even who had received the training. The Commissioner found she had been aware of the broad terms and the provider beforehand, and that she had received the training from Alvaro herself.
That is the first contract: a friend's firm, a minister's own media training, no emergency.
In August 2019 and January 2020, Ng and her staff got media training from another contractor. Her office could buy the service without her friend.
Then came March 2020. On 30 or 31 March, Ng phoned Alvaro. Ng says they did not discuss a contract. But the same evening Alvaro emailed a colleague at her firm about Ng's television coverage the next morning, "indicating they would need to get clips and work on a plan for Ms. Ng", and Ng emailed her communications director that she had asked Alvaro to help create video content. The Commissioner found that the broad terms of the work were settled on that call. On 8 April 2020 her chief of staff signed a contract with Pomp & Circumstance for $16,950. It was awarded with no competing bids; she told the Commissioner its value was under the $25,000 threshold at which Treasury Board policy requires them.
That is the second contract: the minister herself made the call, and the paperwork followed.
- Her office signs with her friend's firmConflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 22 ↗$5,840
- Women and Gender Equality dates its contract with the firmGovernment of Canada, Contract Date, Contract Period, Total Contract Value, Solicitation Procedure and Ministers Office Contracts fields ↗$24,996
- Ng phones Alvaro (30 or 31 March)Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 37 ↗
- The second contract, with no competing bidsConflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 43 ↗$16,950
- Her office: she "did not make the decision"The Canadian Press, via Global News, the statement of Ng's spokeswoman, Alice Hansen ↗
- The Commissioner finds she contravened the ActConflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 69 ↗
- She tells MPs she failed to recuseHouse of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the minister's answer to Mr. Green ↗
On 24 May 2022 Conservative MP James Bezan asked the Commissioner to look into the 2020 contract. On 30 May her office told The Canadian Press: "Minister Ng did not make the decision on this contract." In the course of it, Ng disclosed the 2019 one. On 13 December 2022 Commissioner Mario Dion found that Ng and Alvaro are friends within the meaning of the Act, that Ng participated in the 2019 decision and made the 2020 one, and that she contravened subsection 6(1) and section 21. "The simple fact of receiving, as a public office holder, a service from a friend under a contract paid with public funds" should have sent her to his office, he wrote.
Ng apologized to the Commissioner for falling short of the Act. On 31 January 2023 the Commons ethics committee agreed to study the report, after striking the line that would have had it report its findings to the House. On 10 February 2023 Ng appeared. "I made a mistake," she said. "I failed to recuse both times." She told MPs she had since set up an ethics screen between herself and Alvaro's firm. Asked whether taxpayers should be reimbursed and whether she should stay in cabinet, she said she had "a lot of work to do". Asked again for a yes or no, she said: "I think I've given you my answer."
Before she appeared, on 7 February 2023, her department's officials told the Commons ethics committee how the 2020 contract was bought. The request named the firm and came from the minister's office; Daniel Pilon, the director general of procurement, thought from her chief of staff. The firm "cannot be considered the sole-source provider of these services," he said, but when a manager names a provider under the $40,000 limit, the department is "inclined to grant the manager's request", and the contracting officers "do not conduct conflict of interest analyses."
Alvaro testified the same day as Ng. She said her firm did 103 hours of work on the 2020 contract, and that Ng was her closest relationship of the three ministers she had worked for. Asked the total of her firm's sole-source federal contracts, she said "I don't have that number in front of me"; asked "What would you guess", she said "somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000". The two contracts whose records give the procedure as non-competitive come to $41,946. The night before, Michael Barrett told her, members had received "the documents we requested".
She stayed in cabinet. In the July 2023 shuffle she kept Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, the portfolio she had held since October 2021 less Small Business, until 14 March 2025. Her time as an MP ended in April 2025.
The federal contract disclosure still carries the 2020 contract, with a note added later: its record "was misstated for its period end date and solicitation procedure and has been corrected."
Their side
Her case, in her words: the 2020 contract was under the $25,000 Treasury Board threshold that requires bids, it came "in the time of a pressing emergency", and the firm was qualified and did the work. "It wasn't the contract amount, because that met the rules. It wasn't the work itself." She had no money in the firm, and the Commissioner found no reason to believe she gave any company preferential treatment, because another company with no known personal connection to her was awarded similar contracts around the same time. He accepted that the pandemic "may help explain" how the 2020 conflict escaped her. She apologized to the Commissioner, told the committee she made a mistake, set up an ethics screen between herself and the firm, and arranged ethics training for her staff. "I failed to recuse both times. The commissioner found that. That was the error. I accept that error."
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Ng Report, made under the Conflict of Interest Act, paragraphs 5, 18 and 47 to 50 (Ms. Ng's position)
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics: Evidence No. 57, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, 10 February 2023, the minister's opening statement and answers
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics: Evidence No. 57, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, 10 February 2023, the minister's answers
All 9 sources
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Ng Report, made under the Conflict of Interest Act, paragraph 5
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Ng Report, made under the Conflict of Interest Act, paragraph 66
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Ng Report, made under the Conflict of Interest Act, paragraph 50
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics: Evidence No. 57, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, 10 February 2023, the minister's answers
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Ng Report, made under the Conflict of Interest Act, paragraph 47
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner: Ng Report, made under the Conflict of Interest Act, paragraph 5
The answer
All of that is on the record, and none of it touches the first contract. In March 2019 there was no emergency, and the Commissioner said so: that contract "prevents any consideration of extenuating circumstances". A contract under the bid threshold, as she described it, is not a contract that had to go to a friend: her office bought the same training from another firm twice in between, and her own department told MPs the firm "cannot be considered the sole-source provider". The firm being good at its job is not the test. The test is whether a minister takes part in paying her friend with public money, and the finding is that she took part in the 2019 decision and made the 2020 one. She had set up the screen by February 2023, by her own account.
What we are chasing
- Was any of the money paid back?Would settle it: An Order Paper question on any recovery from Pomp & Circumstance, and the Public Accounts for 2022-23 and 2023-24.
- What did the ethics committee receive when it sent for "time sheets and statements of work" and "all work product" under each contract, and did it ever report?Would settle it: The committee's minutes after 10 February 2023 and the documents tabled with its clerk.
- Who chose the firm at Women and Gender Equality Canada, and why was January's work put under contract in April?Would settle it: The contract file for P1900370, by an access-to-information request to the department, after a check for a completed request on the same file.
- The Commissioner counted six media-training contracts for Ng and her office, the largest worth $24,996, the same amount as the Women and Gender Equality contract. Is it the same contract?Would settle it: The Order Paper answers the Ng Report cites in its footnotes (questions 28, 444 and 480), which name each vendor.
- Did the firm hold a contract with the office of Navdeep Bains, the third minister Alvaro named?Would settle it: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's contracts below the public disclosure floor, by access-to-information request or an Order Paper question.
- Where did Jason Easton, the chief of staff who signed both contracts, go after Ng's office in 2023?Would settle it: The Prime Minister's Office staff list and any Order in Council naming him.
The receipts
Each fact with its document and date. Tap a figure for its source.
The friend
- The Ethics Commissioner found that Mary Ng and Amanda Alvaro, co-founder and head of Pomp & Circumstance, are friends within the meaning of the Act, after almost twenty years. “I find that Ms. Ng and Ms. Alvaro are friends within the meaning of the Act.”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Executive summary; paragraph 59 (2022-12-13) ↗
2 more receipts, 2 to 3
- Alvaro volunteered in Ng's campaigns, as her spokesperson in 2017 and to a lesser extent in 2019 and 2021. “Ms. Alvaro had volunteered in her successive electoral campaigns, as a spokesperson in 2017, and to a lesser extent in 2019 and 2021”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 17 (2022-12-13) ↗
- They met in 2003 in the office of Ontario's education minister. “she first came to know Ms. Alvaro in 2003, when they both worked in the office of Ontario’s Minister of Education”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 14 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Alvaro co-founded the firm in 2015; it mostly serves private-sector clients. “she co-founded Pomp & Circumstance with Lindsay Mattick in 2015 and that the agency mostly serves private-sector clients”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 19 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Alvaro told MPs she had done paid work for three ministers, and that Ng was her closest relationship of the three. “I've done work for three ministers.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, page 14, Mr. Green's questions, then "Then Ms. Ng was your closest relationship?" "That is correct." (2023-02-10) ↗
2 more receipts, 6 to 7
- Elections Canada lists gifts from a contributor named Amanda Alvaro of Toronto, a match on name and city. Leaving out the party's quarterly copies of gifts also in its annual returns, they come to 18 gifts between 2006 and 2022, $13,621 in all: $11,722 to the Liberal Party of Canada, the rest to Chrystia Freeland's 2013 nomination campaign and three Liberal riding associations. None of the rows names Ng or Markham–Thornhill. “Records found: 30 ... "Freeland, Christina (Chrystia) A." "Aug 22, 2013" "Contestant's Nomination Campaign Return / Part 2a" 400.00”Elections Canada, Contributor "Alvaro", "Amanda", all political entities and parties, all provinces, data as submitted; read 15 October 2026; rows by recipient, date received, return and amount ↗
- The federal Registry of Lobbyists holds no registration for Pomp & Circumstance, and none naming Amanda Alvaro or Lindsay Mattick. “No results found”Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, keyword searches for "Pomp & Circumstance", "Pomp Circumstance" and "Mattick", all years, read 15 October 2026; "Alvaro" finds only other people ↗
Not an acquaintance. A friend of twenty years and her campaign spokesperson, by her own account. A contributor named Amanda Alvaro gave to Liberal campaigns for years; no row names Ng. No lobbying registration names the firm.
The first contract, 2019
- On 26 March 2019 her department signed a contract with Pomp & Circumstance for media and communications training, worth $5,840. “an earlier contract, dated March 26, 2019”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 22 (2022-12-13) ↗
3 more receipts, 9 to 11
- Ng told the Commissioner that Easton has delegated authority to negotiate and set up contracts such as these. “Mr. Easton has delegated authority for negotiating and establishing contracts such as those under review in this examination”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 24 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Her chief of staff, Jason Easton, signed the contract's financial authority. Ng confirmed he had known of her friendship with Alvaro since he took the job in 2018. “Mr. Easton was aware of her friendship with Ms. Alvaro from the time he became her Chief of Staff in 2018”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 24 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Alvaro and her co-founder trained Ng at the firm's Toronto office on 29 March 2019, and her staff in Ottawa on 1 April. “she and Ms. Mattick delivered a media training session for Ms. Ng at the Pomp & Circumstance office in Toronto on March 29, 2019”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 27 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Ng told the Commissioner she could not recall anything about the contract, or even who received the training. “she could not recall anything about the contract, the circumstances around it, or even who had received the training provided”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 23 (2022-12-13) ↗
- The Commissioner found she was aware of the terms and the provider beforehand, and received the training from Alvaro herself. “It was also established that Ms. Ng directly received training from Ms. Alvaro under the contract.”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 61 (2022-12-13) ↗
3 more receipts, 14 to 16
- Her office bought media training from another contractor in August 2019 and in January 2020. “Ms. Ng and her ministerial staff received media training from another contractor in August 2019”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 30 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Alvaro told the Commissioner the 2019 contract was her agency's "smallest engagement that year in terms of contract value". “this contract was her agency's smallest engagement that year in terms of contract value”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 29 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Asked by Matthew Green whether she made an exception because of the friendship, she said: "I think I did." “Did you make an exception due to your friendship with Ms. Ng? ... I think I did”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, page 15, Mr. Green's question and Ms. Alvaro's answer (2023-02-10) ↗
No pandemic, no rush. A friend's firm trained the minister, and her office later found another firm for the same work.
The same firm, another minister
- Women and Gender Equality Canada signed a non-competitive contract with Pomp & Circumstance for public relations services worth $24,996, marked as a minister's office contract. The work ran from 8 to 31 January 2019; the contract is dated 4 April 2019. The record gives the value as its total, without saying whether tax is in it. “Solicitation Procedure: Non-Competitive”Government of Canada, Contract Date, Contract Period, Total Contract Value, Solicitation Procedure and Ministers Office Contracts fields ↗
“there had been no other contractual engagement of any kind between her department and either Pomp & Circumstance or Ms. Alvaro individually”
- Alvaro named the three ministers she had worked for: "Minister Monsef at the time, Minister Bains and Minister Ng." “Minister Monsef at the time, Minister Bains and Minister Ng.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, page 14, Mr. Green's questions (2023-02-10) ↗
- Ng told the Commissioner there had been no other contract of any kind between her department and the firm or Alvaro. The Women and Gender Equality contract was another department's. “there had been no other contractual engagement of any kind between her department and either Pomp & Circumstance or Ms. Alvaro individually”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 22 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Asked the total of her firm's sole-source contracts with the government, Alvaro said: "I don't have that number in front of me." Asked "What would you guess", she said "somewhere in the neighbourhood of" $30,000, "in total". “I don't have that number in front of me. ... What would you guess ... somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, page 14, Mr. Green's questions (2023-02-10) ↗
3 more receipts, 21 to 23
- The disclosure record for Ng's 2020 contract, at Global Affairs Canada, gives the same procedure. “Solicitation Procedure: Non-Competitive”Government of Canada, Solicitation Procedure field ↗
- Those two contracts, the only ones whose records give a procedure, come to $41,946; the 2020 figure includes HST. The March 2019 contract for Ng's office, $5,840, stands apart: no record read quotes its procedure. Alvaro's answer did not say what her guess counted. “a fee of $15,000 plus HST (the total amount was $16,950)”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 43 (2022-12-13) ↗
- Alvaro told MPs her firm has had no government contract since 2020. “I do not and have not since 2020.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Barrett's questions to Ms. Alvaro (2023-02-10) ↗
Asked the total of her firm's sole-source federal work, its head said "I don't have that number in front of me"; asked "What would you guess", she said "somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000". The two contracts whose records give the procedure as non-competitive come to $41,946, from two ministers' offices.
Her guess came after "I don't have that number in front of me", and did not say what it counted. The Women and Gender Equality total does not say whether tax is in it; the 2020 figure includes HST.
The phone call, 2020
- On 30 or 31 March 2020, Ng phoned Alvaro herself. “On March 30 or 31, 2020, Ms. Ng initiated an informal telephone conversation with Ms. Alvaro”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 37 (2022-12-13) ↗
3 more receipts, 25 to 27
- That evening Ng told her communications director she had asked Alvaro to help create video content. “she had asked Ms. Alvaro to help create video content to reach a bigger audience to explain supports for businesses”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 40 (2022-12-13) ↗
- The Commissioner found the broad terms of the work were discussed on that call, and that Ng's participation in the decision "is clear". “Ms. Ng's participation in the decision to award the April 2020 contract to Pomp & Circumstance is clear”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 62 (2022-12-13) ↗
- The contract of 8 April 2020 was worth $16,950, for two media training sessions with the minister and the materials. “two media training sessions with the Minister focusing on various types of interviews”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 43 (2022-12-13) ↗
- The federal contract disclosure lists it under Global Affairs Canada as non-competitive, with a note that its solicitation procedure had been misstated and corrected. “The contract was misstated for its period end date and solicitation procedure and has been corrected.”Government of Canada, Solicitation Procedure and Comments fields ↗
- She told the Commissioner the 2020 contract went without competing bids under Treasury Board policy, because its value was under the $25,000 threshold. “the contract was awarded without competing bids pursuant to the applicable Treasury Board policy”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 47 (2022-12-13) ↗
- At committee she said: "it was my office that initiated and negotiated the contract." “In this particular case, it was my office that initiated and negotiated the contract.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the minister's answer to Mr. Villemure (2023-02-10) ↗
The second time, the minister made the call herself. The contract followed on 8 April, with no competing bids.
What the department checked
- Global Affairs Canada, which bought the 2020 contract for her office, told MPs the request to use the firm came from the minister's office. Asked who, its director general of procurement, Daniel Pilon, said he thought it was her chief of staff. “I think it was her chief of staff.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Stewart's opening statement; Mr. Pilon's answer to Mr. Villemure, who asked who provided the provider's name: first "It was the minister's office", then the quoted words (2023-02-07) ↗
- Pilon said the firm "cannot be considered the sole-source provider of these services". “Pomp & Circumstance cannot be considered the sole-source provider of these services.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Pilon's answers to Mr. Villemure (2023-02-07) ↗
- He said that when a manager names a provider and the value is under the limit, the department is "inclined to grant the manager's request". “we are inclined to grant the manager's request and award the contract to that provider”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Pilon's answers to Mr. Villemure (2023-02-07) ↗
2 more receipts, 34 to 35
- The department put the limit for a contract without bids at $40,000, taxes included, and said it was the same when the contract was awarded. Ng had told the Commissioner $25,000. “There is a regulatory threshold for sole-source contracts, which is currently $40,000. That threshold was the same when the contract was awarded.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Pilon's answers to Mr. Villemure (2023-02-07) ↗
- Pilon said the department's contracting officers do not check for conflicts of interest. “the contracting officer group does not conduct conflict of interest analyses.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Pilon's answers to Mr. Villemure (2023-02-07) ↗
- The deputy minister, Rob Stewart, said there is no contract-by-contract check that the value was delivered; an audit process "periodically samples" contracts. “there is no contract-by-contract verification, but we have an audit process. It periodically samples contracts”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Stewart's answer to Ms. Lantsman (2023-02-07) ↗
- The department's file described media sessions, and the minister's chief of staff confirmed that the service was received. “the receipt of service, in this case, was confirmed by the chief of staff in the minister's office”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Pilon's answers to Ms. Lantsman (2023-02-07) ↗
- Alvaro told MPs the firm delivered 103 hours of work and 56 products on the contract, "on time and on budget". “In total, we produced 103 hours of work, including 56 products worked on by five people over 17 days.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Ms. Alvaro's opening statement (2023-02-10) ↗
The department checked the price. The name came from her office, the contracting officers did not look for a conflict, and that check was left to the minister, who did not recuse.
The finding, and after
- When the complaint became public in May 2022, her office told The Canadian Press: "Minister Ng did not make the decision on this contract." “Minister Ng did not make the decision on this contract”The Canadian Press, via Global News, the statement of Ng's spokeswoman, Alice Hansen (2022-05-30) ↗
- The Commissioner found she took part in the 2019 decision and made the 2020 one. “Ms. Ng participated in making a decision (in March 2019) and made a decision (in April 2020) to hire Pomp & Circumstance”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 64 (2022-12-13) ↗
- The Commissioner found she contravened subsection 6(1) and section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. “Accordingly, I find that Ms. Ng has contravened subsection 6(1) and section 21 of the Act.”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 69 (2022-12-13) ↗
2 more receipts, 42 to 43
- The Act sets an administrative monetary penalty, at most $500, only for the duties section 52 lists: subsections 22(1), (2) and (5), section 23, subsections 24(1) and (2), 25(1) to (6) and 26(1) and (2), and subsection 27(7). Subsection 6(1) and section 21, the sections she was found to have broken, are not on the list. “(a) subsections 22(1), (2) and (5); (b) section 23; ... (f) subsection 27(7).”Department of Justice Canada, Justice Laws Website, section 52, paragraphs (a) to (f) ↗
- He found the 2019 contract ruled out any allowance for the pandemic. “the precedent created by the March 2019 contract ... prevents any consideration of extenuating circumstances in this matter”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 66 (2022-12-13) ↗
- He found she had had "ample time" to consider recusal or a screen. “I believe that Ms. Ng had ample time to contemplate compliance measures such as recusal or preventative measures such as the implementation of a screen”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 66 (2022-12-13) ↗
- The Commons ethics committee agreed to study the report, after striking the words that it report its finding to the House and that the government respond. “to delete the words "that the committee report its findings to the House; and that the government table a comprehensive response to the report"”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Ms. Khalid's amendment, then "(Amendment agreed to)" and "(Motion as amended agreed to)" (2023-01-31) ↗
2 more receipts, 46 to 47
- Michael Barrett told her that members had received "the documents we requested" the night before she testified. “At about 9:45 last night, members of this committee received the documents we requested”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Barrett's questions to the minister (2023-02-10) ↗
- At committee she said: "I failed to recuse both times." “I failed to recuse both times. The commissioner found that. That was the error. I accept that error.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the minister's answer to Mr. Green (2023-02-10) ↗
- At committee, asked whether taxpayers should be reimbursed and whether she should stay in cabinet, she answered that she had a lot of work to do; pressed for a yes or no, she gave none. “I think I've given you my answer.”House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Mr. Barrett's questions and the minister's answers (2023-02-10) ↗
- In the July 2023 shuffle she kept Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, the portfolio expanded to Economic Development in October 2021, and held it until 14 March 2025. “Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development”House of Commons, Offices and Roles as a Parliamentarian ↗
- Her portfolio had included International Trade since November 2019 and Economic Development since October 2021. “again on October 26, 2021, to include Economic Development”Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 10 (2022-12-13) ↗
A finding that she took part in the 2019 decision and made the 2020 one, and an apology. She stayed in cabinet, and gave no answer on the money. Section 52 sets a penalty only for the filing and disclosure duties it lists, and subsection 6(1) and section 21 are not among them.
- Published.
- Added the record's own pages beside the text, cropped to the quoted words and marked.
- Set key quotes as pull quotes and folded long lists behind their count.
- The official's page now shows this story's opening, with a link here.