Thank you very much, Chair.
I was very glad to hear the comments of my colleague Ms. Damoff, because I know that she served here on this committee. When she said that she felt that it was déjà vu all over again, I feel like I could commiserate with her, because I was on this committee as well in a previous Parliament.
There's nothing new about this tactic that has been chosen by the Conservative MPs here to effectively take whatever ruling the commissioner has made, question it and, frankly, proceed as if no prior consultation had taken place and as if there was no ruling by the commissioner. In fact, in one case—a recent case—it was, I think, four times that the commissioner had ruled on the case of a minister, and that was not enough. Not once, not twice, not three times and not even the fourth time was that sufficient for the members in question.
It is really regrettable that instead of taking a proactive view, which I think we could all agree on and in fact was what Ms. Khalid was making her arguments about.... We recognize that there are indeed some gaps, as Monsieur Villemure has said, and a requirement to update the act regarding conflict of interest and the code of ethics for parliamentarians.
It is difficult. We talk about the difference between principles and regulations. Regulations do try to capture every possible situation that can arise in contravention of principles. However, human nature is very imaginative, Chair, and people think of different ways to circumvent them. I guess they think it is their privilege to do so.
I'm speaking about something that came up at public accounts because it had to do with spending by members on their travel expenses. Conservative members used the pretext of a caucus meeting in Quebec City to pay for travel not only for themselves but for spouses and staff to attend what was effectively a partisan political convention—which is normally paid out of one's own personal pocket—at the same time and, for all intents and purposes, in the same place.
Taxpayers were not fooled, because Mr. Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Association, normally someone who one would think is inclined to agree with a Conservative point of view, denounced that practice. He was inflamed that such expenses were claimed on the taxpayer dollar. He certainly made that clear in his comments regarding fiscal prudence and the judicious use of taxpayer money, and he certainly had something to say, as did other commentators.
That is an area that indeed is worthy of this committee to be taking up, to be looking at. I believe we're way overdue on the updating of the act respecting conflict of interest and the code of conduct for members. I think that would have been an exercise that would have been very much welcomed by all members of this committee, but indeed that was not the choice of this committee.
I wasn't here for all of those discussions, but I certainly would have been on the side of undertaking that study and looking at it. Let's provide the context, especially in modern day, of what the kinds of situations are.
Again, Mr. Chair, I come back to this: It's not about a gotcha and it's not about getting this person, that person or the other person. It's about looking at the risk and the potential for the actions of anyone who is a parliamentarian, who is representing Canadians, who is working on behalf of Canadians. It's about the risk that their actions may result in a diminishing the institutions that have been handed to us over many generations, some with fine tuning, changes and updates over the years, but they are institutions that still adhere to the basic principle that we are here not on our own behalf, not for our own interests, but for the interests of Canadians and for the interests of Canada.
I say this knowing full well that this view may not be shared by all members at this committee, but I know that the purpose of conducting our affairs is to ensure that Canada is well represented on the world stage and that we are able to encourage economic development and prosperity across the country. I often say to my constituents that my role as a federal member of Parliament is to ensure that every part of the country enjoys the same standards and has access to the same opportunities, which means that constituents in the smallest village in Jardins-de-Napierville should enjoy the same opportunities.
I'm very happy to say that we have seen significant investment in our region over the past 10 years, and I'm very proud to have played a role in that. It's not Brenda Shanahan by herself who did that; I was working in conjunction with municipal authorities and provincially elected members, who have changed, of course, over the years, and stakeholders in the region.
What would sadden me is if I had constituents who could not have confidence in the people they had elected to represent them here in Ottawa, which is just a place. We have to meet somewhere, so this is where it is. It is this idea of Parliament, where we're able to speak together and work together, and we do so in our respective roles.
That is why I believe, Mr. Chair, that we don't refer to each other by our personal names in the House. We are not allowed to use our personal names. We must always use either “the member for such-and-such a riding” or the executive title the person holds. To make it even more clear, I'll say that we are not addressing Sally, Joe, Jean-Guy or Céline; we are addressing the member for such-and-such a riding or the minister of such-and-such a ministry. That is the way we conduct ourselves in that regard.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, with regard to this motion, the more I reflect on it, the more I am not at all convinced of its having any merit. I would like to hear from other colleagues to see if any other arguments can be brought forward that would convince me otherwise. In the meantime, I think I'll leave it. Perhaps we can hear from other colleagues here. That would help me in my thinking.
Chair, you can put me back on the list.
Thank you.