Thank you, Chair.
I want to talk a little bit about the points that Mr. Cooper made, which I think really contradict exactly what he's trying to say.
Mr. Cooper quoted the Conflict of Interest Act and what really makes a conflict of interest real.
In fact, this committee has tried in the past to study the Conflict of Interest Act and study exactly how 79% of Conservatives were using the total expenses of accommodations to use public funds to go to partisan party conventions.
How can we make sure that the Conflict of Interest Act creates that safety net for taxpayers?
I will quote here:
A loophole in the House of Commons' spending rules has allowed MPs travelling to party conventions to bill taxpayers for more than half a million dollars over the past year—even though House of Commons rules normally prohibit MPs from charging expenses linked to partisan political activity.
Since May 2023, MPs have charged to the House of Commons $538,314 in travel, accommodation, meals and incidental costs associated with attending caucus meetings held in connection with party conventions—including more than $84,000 for travel by “designated travellers,” often MPs' spouses.
Expense claims filed to the Senate by seven Conservative senators for travel, accommodation and per diems added another $26,293 to the total.
Conservative MPs racked up 79 per cent of the spending by MPs. They billed the House of Commons $426,283 to attend a caucus meeting associated with the Conservative Party's policy convention in Quebec City in September 2023, including $331,699 for travel, $71,408 for accommodations and $21,053 for meals and incidentals.
This is a very important point:
Conservative MPs were the only ones to bill Parliament for spouses' travel to a caucus meeting connected to a party convention during that time period.
It's so interesting that Mr. Cooper would have you do as he says, but not as he does. That goes for all of his Conservative colleagues.