Evidence of meeting #146 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tickets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please, on the motion as amended.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
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.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I heard, but I don't think you really do have a point of order.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'll continue:
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre did not file an expense claim to the House of Commons from his MP's budget for travel to Quebec City.
I find that to be quite troubling. All of our committee commits to talking about and working on ethics rules in the House, and what has Mr. Cooper done? He and his party made sure that this motion never saw the light of day in this committee.
It was presented. We talked about it. What did they do? It was don't “Do as I say”, or whatever that saying is, Chair.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Yes, it's “Do as I say, not as I do.” I would love a bigger round of applause. Thank you very much.
I will also point out—and this may be a trivial matter to some—that when we get these jubilee pins or little king's medals to give out to our constituents, I always find it weird when MPs wear them themselves, because I always thought these were taxpayer dollars that were spent to buy these medals or these little pins that we then give to our constituents. If an MP wears them, are they now misusing taxpayer dollars?
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
It's a very valid question. You should ask Mr. Williamson.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
That's absurd. You're absurd.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Indeed I did, and I won't apologize.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Those medals are part of the order of precedence. Anyone who receives one, just like anyone who receives a decoration from the viceroy for their service in the Canadian Armed Forces, is absolutely entitled to wear them. To say otherwise is preposterous.
No, it's not an abuse of taxpayer money for anyone who receives a decoration that's in the official order of precedence to wear it, any more than it is for the viceroy, the Governor General of Canada, to wear their medal. It's an absurd comment.
