Public Accounts Committee on May 21st, 2024

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It's not a point of order. It's the speaking list. Am I on it?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You're on it now.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor, please.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Before I was interrupted by points of order from the Liberals, I was articulating that Ms. Shanahan, as national caucus chair, did expend significant amounts of money to attend caucus meetings.

I would note further that the Members By-Law, which is a matter that falls under BOIE, the Board of Internal Economy, would be responsible for this. I see Ms. Shanahan wants to distract from the government's disastrous arrive scam ineptitude, where an app that should have cost a few hundred thousand dollars ballooned to $60 million of taxpayer dollars and an RCMP investigation. I can see why she wants to distract from that.

The fact is that the board rules that the members' bylaws permit members to attend national caucus meetings, which are typically all-day events held at different points in time. We call them caucus retreats or caucus meetings, but they are caucus matters. As some colleagues may or may not know, in a past life I have been working on a long-delayed Ph.D. dissertation on caucus meetings, so I do have some familiarity with caucus meetings from all parties, frankly, from a number of decades gone by.

I would point out, first of all, that this is a matter that is there. Members attend caucus meetings. That's part of our parliamentary functions. Frankly, if we look at past Speakers' rulings, we've actually seen various Speakers, including Mr. Speaker Regan, a Liberal Speaker—not that it matters—ruling on occasion, two Parliaments ago, that caucus meetings do indeed constitute a part of parliamentary functions. All of a sudden the Liberals think that we're going to have some kind of investigation into the meetings of caucuses. It seems rather interesting and, again, comical, given the timing, that they want to do this.

Obviously, there are caucus meetings held at various points in time. I know the Liberals enjoyed a wonderful caucus meeting in St. Andrews by-the-Sea. Perhaps Mr. Stewart can tell us about that lovely location, but they do happen at various locations in the country. When matters happen, we follow the members' procedural bylaws that provide clarity and certainty. Expenses that are eligible are one thing, and expenses that aren't eligible aren't permitted. The bylaw clearly states that national caucus meetings and regional caucus meetings are permitted, as we know from Ms. Shanahan's own expense claims about her attendance at various matters.

I really don't know what this is, especially since this is not an issue for public accounts. This is a Board of Internal Economy issue. However, once again, what we're seeing here is a Liberal attempt to cover up the malfeasance that we've seen with ArriveCAN. At every meeting we've seen in these last few weeks, every time we see new allegations, whether it's from Erin O'Gorman as the current president of the CBSA or John Ossowski as the former president, we see a flagrant disregard for taxpayer funds—a complete disregard.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

It's just relevance to the motion. I just want to point out Mr. Nater's expensing of $2,117 for a partisan convention—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's not a point of order. You're splitting....

Mr. Nater, you have the floor, if you could just stay on point.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Not that it's relevant, Mr. Chair, but if Ms. Shanahan looked at that, she would notice that I flew in the night before the caucus meeting and left the next day after the caucus meeting, not that she would want to worry about details like that. Obviously she's never let facts get in the way of a good partisan job, but that's for her to live with and not for me.

My expenses are all a matter of the public record, and I am more than happy to defend attending caucus meetings where we are committed as a Conservative caucus to axing the tax, building homes, fixing the budget and stopping crime. That's what we're focused on. We're not focused on the Liberal cover-up that we're seeing, not only with this motion but with their complete and utter disregard for the findings of the Auditor General and trying to disrupt the meeting every time.

Ms. Shanahan calls for relevance. Well, this is relevant. It is relevant because this is being used by the Liberal members on this committee, by the Liberal national caucus chair, to try to distract and change the subject matter for upcoming meetings, especially after they made such a silly, comical display last week to reinforce what the chair had already decided.

I think this is nothing more than a Liberal attempt to distract away from the real matter, which is, of course, arrive scam, and I will leave my comments there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Bradford, I believe you have the floor. Thank you.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should clarify that the problem arises when certain parties have a habit of pairing up a caucus meeting with a political convention. That's where the difficulty arises. The Liberal Party hasn't done that since prior to the 2014 convention held in Montreal. We don't pair caucus meetings with conventions.

I'm not sure if Mr. Nater didn't attend that Conservative convention that was held in conjunction with the caucus meeting in Quebec City in September 2023. I suspect that he did attend the convention, since he was there, so it turns out that for the three members who are here today, Mr. Nater cost $2,117.18., Ms. Ferreri cost $3,893.24 and Mr. Williamson cost $1,846.81.

These three members alone, who are sitting here today, represent $8,367.11 by attending a political convention that was held in conjunction with caucus, and that is not the intention for the use of House of Commons' money. It's not to be used for political purposes at all.

I'd like to draw your attention to Geneviève Tellier, a professor of political studies at the University of Ottawa. A CBC article quotes her:

Parliament makes a distinction between the parliamentary and the political activities of MPs for a reason, but the House of Commons is also free to adopt its own rules.

The decision is a bit surprising for me because I would have thought that there may be other priorities, other needs within Parliament that need funding, but they don't have the funding to do so.

The article continues:

Tellier also questioned why Conservative MPs are billing the House of Commons for travel to a party convention, including by designated travellers, when the party's coffers are well stocked.

Designated travellers would be people's spouses, etc.

The article says that she felt that it would be better for them to set the example and say that we don't go that way, we don't authorize that type of spending. They have the money anyway to pay for the travel of people that they want for the convention from party funds.

I'm making the point that the Conservatives did do this at that convention. It's an example. I believe that's why Ms. Shanahan is bringing forward this motion today for us to consider. We should have a look at this, because it is a misuse of money. Money is being directed to partisan events because they're being held in conjunction with the caucus, and they're using that caucus excuse to get the travel expenses for themselves and their designated travellers to get to the political convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sorbara, you have the floor.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Stewart, you have the floor.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few things that I want to add.

In Saint John, New Brunswick, in September 2022, Mr. Sorbara spent $2,330.62. As well, in Whitehorse, Mrs. Shanahan spent, I believe, in excess of $5,000.

I also want to raise something else here, Mr. Chair. I think it's important. The Liberal party's caucus retreat in New Brunswick in 2022 cost taxpayers $428,000 and change. Some of it was billed to the House of Commons, and some expenses for staffers in ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office were billed to those offices. Also, the figures included $43,292 in expenses for MPs' designated travellers.

I also want to mention the Prime Minister's trip to, I believe, Montana. Before they added the RCMP costs and the police detail that would travel with the Prime Minister, I believe it exceeded $400,000. It could have been half a million dollars, but in my mind it's at least $400,000.

I think that if we're going to throw stones, we should understand what we've done ourselves. Listen, we've been dealing with a billion-dollar slush fund and a $60-some-million ArriveCAN scandal. One contractor got $20 million. I think it's quite rich that the Liberal party could spend that much in St. Andrews by-the-Sea, I believe, which is a very beautiful part of New Brunswick. However, that's $400,000. Considering that a weekend national caucus meeting is being discussed here before the committee, I think it's very interesting that the Liberals would actually go this route, judging from their own record. That is perhaps the strangest aspect of this meeting here today.

The Liberals' record on spending on hotel costs and what's being billed to the taxpayer has been, on occasion, so alarming that it's spent numerous days on the front page. I think all of Canada has been quite perplexed by the idea of a $90,000 Jamaican vacation, a half-million-dollar Montana vacation and a $400,000 caucus retreat in New Brunswick, Canada, in my backyard or close to it, in St. Andrews.

I think the Liberal record is shocking on so many levels. As a member of this committee, I'm kind of perplexed that we're even having this discussion. I mean, any member of this committee from any party has the right to move a motion, and I don't mean to be disrespectful to that part, because it is the right of a member. I'm just shocked that the Liberal Party's direction would go there, of all places, because its own record has been so abysmal. We've just seen it so often that I....

You know, Mr. Chair, I think it would be fair to say that taxpayers in general have a legitimate fatigue with this sort of discussion, and I don't think that they expect anything different from the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada, so I think that maybe this motion today is some sort of attempt to change the channel on perhaps one of their very own worst attributes as a party.

Let's look at these figures again. Let's just think about them. Obviously, I respect Mr. Sorbara. He's definitely a good guy. I've met him a few times. However, here's a guy who has a $2,330 charge in New Brunswick, and some of the charges we're dealing with today are $1,000 less than that. I find that very strange.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There is a point of order. Give me just one second, Mr. Stewart.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm sorry. Perhaps it's more of a point of clarification. I'm just seeing who is on the speaking list so far, where I am on that list and how long we have the resources for, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll update that after Mr. Stewart is done.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said, I think there's a general fatigue, and I think sometimes that the governing members are fatigued themselves because they're dealing with so many monetary issues and so many scandalous issues that taxpayers are fatigued by. I think that maybe this is just some sort of lame attempt to save a little bit of face for once in the last nine years.

Also, I think that if the Prime Minister is going to spend $90,000 in Jamaica, $6,000 on hotel rooms in England, half a million dollars on a vacation in Montana and, I think, a few hundred thousand again in Tofino.... I know I'm missing significant events that would have cost significant and substantial amounts of public money. However, I think at the same time, Mr. Chair, I find that—

[An hon. member]

You could talk about the barn.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

You know, I could talk about the barn here. I actually forgot, Mr. Chair, and thankfully—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Stewart, the barn is not quite relevant to the motion.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Order. Order.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I think it is.