Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
Members of Parliament last year went on the fewest sponsored international trips in the last 15 years, excluding the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the ethics commissioner’s annual report on sponsored travel tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, only 15 MPs accepted international travel paid for by an organization or interest group in 2025, totalling $78,721.
That was down sharply from $230,000 in 2024 and $840,000 in 2023.
Since 2010, the only years MPs accepted less sponsored travel were in 2020 and 2021.
Former Independent MP Kevin Vuong had the second-highest travel tab, racking up $8,962 worth of travel in January and February to Israel and Jamaica.
That was more than the total for the three Conservative MPs who accepted a combined total of $7,518 worth of sponsored travel to England, Greece and the Czech Republic.
NDP MPs accepted $7,742 worth of travel while one Bloc Québécois MP accepted a trip to Germany worth $1,500.
Overall, in 2025 MPs received $54,650 worth of transportation, $15,737 worth of accommodations and $8,302 in other expenses.
Travel info must be shared with ethics commissioner
Under the rules of the House of Commons, MPs are allowed to accept travel sponsored by organizations and interest groups but they have to declare them and provide receipts to Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, who then posts them online and submits an annual report to Parliament.
MPs often defend accepting the travel by saying it allows them to attend conferences and visit destinations that will help them with their work as parliamentarians.
Critics often question the value of the trips, likening them to junkets. Groups who sponsor the travel often welcome the opportunity to influence how an MP sees the world or a particular situation.
Over the years, two of the top destinations for sponsored travel have been Taiwan and Israel.
However, Taiwan was absent from the list of sponsored travel in 2025. The Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada said it decided to resume sponsored trips this year after conducting an internal review.
The office brought five MPs to Taiwan to promote bilateral relations in January.
Vuong’s Jan. 17-24 trip paid for by the Exigent Foundation was an MP’s only sponsored trip to Israel in 2025.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) has frequently sponsored travel by MPs and other political influencers to Israel. However, spokesperson Ella Pekarsky said that didn’t happen last year.
“Due to the ongoing war and restrictions on travel to the region, CIJA has not been in a position to facilitate parliamentary delegations to Israel,” Pekarsky said in an emailed response.
Four MPs did travel to the Middle East in December, courtesy of the group Canadian-Muslim Vote which spent $21,498 to bring MPs to Jordan to visit refugee camps, talk with humanitarian organizations and meet Jordanian parliamentarians. The MPs had planned to enter the West Bank as part of that trip, but were denied entry.
In 2025, the second-largest sponsor of MP travel was the Panamerican Congress, which spent $12,062 to bring four MPs to Mexico City in early August to attend its conference. Human Concern spent $11,091 to bring two Liberal MPs to Bangladesh in November to meet with Rohingya refugees in camps and observe relief supported by Canada.
Last year was marked by political turbulence that would have made international travel more difficult. The resignation of former prime minister Justin Trudeau in January was followed by the prorogation of Parliament and an election campaign in March and April that brought Prime Minister Mark Carney’s minority government to power along with a large number of new MPs.
While the hybrid sitting rules adopted by Parliament allow MPs to vote remotely, the rules do not allow them to vote from outside Canada — which means that taking part in sponsored international travel while the House of Commons was sitting risked changing the outcome of a vote.
