Thank you, Chair. I think this is the first opportunity I've had to engage in the debate today at the committee.
When I look at the motion from my colleague Mrs. Shanahan with regard to the matter at hand and the sentiment expressed in the flagrant disregard for public funds exercised by Pierre Poilievre's Conservative Party of Canada and its members of Parliament, Chair, it goes to the heart of the matter, which is that we as parliamentarians have responsibilities when we travel to events and travel outside our constituency offices.
In this case here, when we members have caucus meetings, we travel to those caucus meetings at wherever they're scheduled across this beautiful country that we're all blessed to call home, but they're not conventions. They're not political conventions where then you can tack on an extra day or two here or there.
Where I grew up in northern British Columbia, this is seen as playing loosey-goosey with the rules and how you interpret them. I know Mr. Stewart's from New Brunswick, if I remember correctly, and my sister-in-law's from that area. Growing up in northern B.C., in terms of how you've interpreted the rules in this type of thing, you try to get away with something until you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
I've gone to political conventions since 1988. I believe that was my first one as a private citizen, and now for the last nine years I've gone as an elected official. When you go to political conventions, expenses are paid with your own funds or they're paid through a process in your electoral district association, your EDA. In no way have we gone to a political convention and then tacked on a day and said that we're going to bring individuals with us and charge it back to, ultimately, the taxpayers of Canada. I think that is wrong.
Here, with reference to Ms. Shanahan's, motion with regard to the Quebec City convention, it was a full-fledged political convention. To then say that they were going to have a day of caucus meetings or so forth and then charge expenses back on that is, I think, to be blunt, very unacceptable.
The issue at hand is that the events should be separate, and fully separate. If I'm looking at a Venn diagram, the circles should not cross in any matter at all, and this time they did cross. Somebody interpreted the rules and said that they thought they could get away with this, and now they're saying, “Wait a second; I think that's actually wrong. It may be within the rules, but it actually does not pass the smell test.”
As parliamentarians, we're all here to do better and to do the best we can for our constituents, taxpayers and voters of this country. In this regard, it's not putting the matter of the public interest at heart. It's not being what I would say is the best that we can all be as parliamentarians, Chair.
When I read these stories as reported by the media, I was actually thinking about this. I was thinking, “How would that work and why would they do that?” They went to a political convention and they tacked on an extra day and then charged it back to the Government of Canada or their MOBs, their member's office budget.
There needs to be that separation. I fully think there needs to be a separation.
As a parliamentarian, I like to learn and I like to always do what I can for my constituents and do better. I think we all, as parliamentarians, read the rules that we're governed under and we all act accordingly. We act according to the best of our ability, but I think that in this case here, somebody thought, “I think we can do this. It may not pass the smell test and I may not be able to explain it, but I think I can try to get away with it.”
That's not right. That's not the way we raise our children. Most certainly, that's not the way I'm going to raise my kids. In fact, for all the political conventions we've gone to, at all my caucus meetings, I can actually flatly say that we—my wife and I—made a plan to not bring our family members to them, to keep them always separate. We don't like to conflate that matter. Even on occurrences when folks come to visit me in Ottawa, we actually pay our own expenses.
I think that's the right thing to do. I think we have those dependant traveller points and stuff like that, and that's fine; people have a right to do that. I see people bringing their spouses and partners and so forth on flights. We all choose what we want to do and how we wish to act and comport ourselves as parliamentarians. That's within our purview, and I'm not here to judge other folks. At the same time, we all represent our constituencies and the taxpayers within those constituencies.
In this case here, again, the flagrant disregard for public funds is unfortunate. I think folks could have done better on this front. There is a separation between a party's political convention and the caucus meetings that were tacked on, so claiming expenses back to your MOB is, I think, wrong, unfortunately. Much to my chagrin, when I read that story, I think a lot of well-intentioned MPs looked at that and made it a practice, but when you take a step back, it's probably not the most prudent way of managing things.
I'm going to stop there; I have said my piece on this front. I think we need to be stewards of the till. I know, Chair, given your background—I think you were the president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation or something to that effect, and if I'm wrong, please correct me—you have always wanted to act in the best interests of taxpayers in your province of New Brunswick and across the country, and I have that bent as well with the background I bring to Parliament and how I see things.
With that, I would like to thank Ms. Shanahan for bringing forward this motion. I think it is a great motion and I hope we have a chance to continue debating it to see where we go from here, what the will of the committee is and what we wish to do with it.
Thank you.