OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 066 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 1, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 1, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 066 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 066 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 066 (Version officielle) 147 066 01 04 2014 2014/04/01 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 11 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fall report of the Canadian delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in the European Parliamentary Assembly respecting its participation at the 22nd annual session of the OSCEPA in Istanbul from June 29 to July 3, 2013.

Petitions Experimental Lakes Area Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, petitions continue to pour in from Canadians across the country who are urging the government to save the Experimental Lakes Area. The government revoked funding for the ELA in 2012, but it has been negotiating to save the research facility after public outcry. It gives me great pleasure to remind my fellow parliamentarians that the Experimental Lakes Area is not yet dead and hopefully we can still save it. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I also have a petition from Canadians who are interested in saving the Experimental Lakes Area. It is a place where science is done for the good of all of society, indeed, the whole world, because of the importance of freshwater to human beings. It is my pleasure to present this petition to the House today.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) Motion moved: That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family. He said: Mr.

Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in this place and be chosen to speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay. I am certainly proud to rise today on the issue of the abuse of the public trust in taxpayers with the misuse of government resources, particularly the use of the Challenger jet. Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier .

This issue needs to be debated in the House because we see within the government the continual and deliberate blurring of the lines between the use of government resources that are meant to serve the people of Canada and the partisan narrow interests of the Conservative war machine. Whether it is the misuse of government resources or the redrawing of the websites, everything the government seems to be doing is taking public resources and turning them to the personal use of the party or its friends. That is something the Conservatives used to rail against in the old Liberal regime.

Very clear rules about the use of flights were set up by the Board of Internal Economy. For members of Parliament who do have to charter planes into isolated regions—for example, I have had to charter flights up into James Bay—there are clear rules. Number one is, we have to ensure that the only people on those planes actually are government staff. Anyone else on the plane would have to be put on the flight manifest and would have to pay the full charge.

The Board of Internal Economy is very clear on this, so when we find out that a guy who raised $3.5 million for the Prime Minister gets to fly back and forth from Calgary, that is simply not acceptable. That is an abuse of trust. I would like to read a few quotes that will put this into context: We have seen the Prime Minister flying around the country on Challenger jets doing a few hours of government work, then spending the rest of the time campaigning and fundraising…. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The…culture of entitlement goes on. The public must be given a chance to put an end to it.

Who said that? It was our present Prime Minister when he was in opposition. Yes, meet the new boss; same as the old boss over there. The issue here is that this is a government that is telling the rest of Canadians that the cupboard is bare and yet the Prime Minister can fly one of his buddies down to watch the New York Yankees at a ball game, where the Challenger jet cost taxpayers anywhere between $8,000 and $11,000 an hour to run.

When the government is telling senior citizens in my riding that the cupboard is bare, while it is flying its friends to ball games, I would ask the Canadian people if they think that is fair. A number of people have spoken out on this issue. I would like to quote them now: Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are barely coping with higher gasoline prices, the…ministers do not share such mundane concerns. They prefer going from Ottawa to Toronto aboard a luxury jet that costs $11,000 an hour to operate…. How can the Prime Minister justify such a waste of public funds? Who said that?

It was the present Minister of Employment and Social Development . There are a few others: Mr. Speaker, if $1 million on airfare were not enough, it turns out, through access to information, that of the 141 flights taken on the Challenger jet between January and July, over $71,000 was spent on food. That does not include the bar bill. That represents an average of $508 per flight, just less than the monthly grocery bill for a Nova Scotia family of four. How does the Prime Minister justify spending the equivalent of the cost of a monthly family grocery bill on an air flight? Just what was on that menu?

Who said that? It was the present Minister of Justice. We all remember him when he was minister of defence. He is the man who ordered a search and rescue helicopter to pick him up from his hunting camp because he was too lazy to come out on his own. He used our military government resources to fly him from his hunting camp. Mr. Robert Chisholm: He had to get to dinner though. Mr. Charlie Angus: Mr, Speaker, oh, he had to get to dinner, yes. He had the lobster dinner he had to go to.

(1010) Here is the man who is the Minister of National Defence, using taxpayers’ resources to go to court to tell veterans of our country that this government has no obligation to them. If we asked any Canadian on the street what they think of our obligation to veterans, they would say that it is shameful that the Conservatives are using taxpayers' dollars to argue that they have no social contract with veterans. Yet the Minister of Justice had a total social contract with the military when he needed to be picked up from hunting camp to be flown to his lobster dinner.

This is the kind of abuse that Canadians-— Mr. Robert Chisholm: Got any more? Mr. Charlie Angus: We have got lots of them, Mr. Speaker. I have been holding this one back, because it comes from one of the most quotable and most ridiculous members of Parliament that have ever sat in this House in the last 150 years. …the minister has been at his post for five years…. The Sea Kings are no closer to being replaced.… Instead there are Challenger jets to fly the Prime Minister and his cabinet around in luxury. Who said that? Think, folks. It was the member for Calgary West .

We are having fun with this, but this is not a funny issue. This is about a contempt for the Canadian people. The Prime Minister told Canadians in 2006 that he would clean up this culture of entitlement. Instead, his attitude was that he would clean up the Liberals, and once they were done, then he and his friends would pork out at the trough. That is not what Canadians voted for. This is not about saying that the Prime Minister and his family should not use the Challenger for security reasons, although I note that the present Minister of Industry said: There is something else the government can do.

If the government wants to show confidence in the commercial airline industry, here is a suggestion. Will the Prime Minister park his Challenger jet and fly commercial skies as other Canadians do as a sign of faith that security works? That is what the present Minister of Industry said when he was in opposition. He wanted the Liberal Prime Minister to fly commercial air, but he has not said that in cabinet because they enjoy the perks. Again, this is abuse of the public trust from a government that said it would do something better.

The Conservatives are doing it at a time when they are telling senior citizens that the cupboard is bare; when they are telling veterans who served our country, “Hey, buzz off, we are done with you, and we will go to court to fight you”; when they are telling first nations children in the north, “You do not deserve schools because we cannot afford them”. However, when it comes to looking after their pals, there is all the money in the world. Speaking of which, I go back to the Minister of Justice and his complaint about the cost of food.

He wanted to know how they could justify wasting that much money on a flight. Yet we just found out that the Prime Minister spent $32,000 feeding his hand-picked crew who went to Israel. That was $150 per meal, and if we look at what they were serving, oh, man, those sandwiches looked pretty brutal. If they are going to blow money like that, at least they could serve people well. We Canadians expect better from this Prime Minister and we are not getting it. That is why we brought this forward, and we are doing it in a non-partisan manner. This is what the Conservative Party stood for.

We are asking Conservatives to return to their roots. Perhaps they have forgotten where they came from. Perhaps they have forgotten how they used to be offended by the use of taxpayers' dollars to help friends, insiders, and buddies. This is a moment where we reach out across the aisle to our poor, wayward, lost children of the Conservative Party and try to bring them back into the fold of accountability and say, “This is just one little way of doing this”. Mr. Robert Chisholm: We could rehabilitate them. Mr. Charlie Angus: We can rehabilitate them, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if we could rehabilitate all of them, but we are willing to try. That just shows the kind of people we have on our side; that we believe that people can be reformed, even the old Reformers, who have certainly given up on their sense of accountability. We are asking for all-party support on this. We are not saying the Prime Minister cannot fly the Challenger. We are not saying his family cannot fly on it, but people like bagmen and buddies have no business getting free and cheap flights on the taxpayers' dime. Let us have some rules. Let us follow the rules. Canadians follow the rules.

It is time the government followed the rules.

(1015) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised when I saw that the NDP has brought to the floor an issue it has decided is one of abuse of public trust. The reason I am having a difficult time with that is because we need to appreciate what the leader of the New Democratic Party has been up to lately. We can talk about the millions of tax dollars that have been abused through the direct mail that has gone out. We can talk about the outreach office.

The outreach office is supposed to be in Saskatchewan where the NDP does not have any members of Parliament, and it is there to service constituents. The NDP does not have any right to give lectures regarding the issue of public trust. It has done a disservice to public trust. Remember how it had to be dragged kicking and screaming on proactive disclosure because it did not want to tell Canadians where it was flying and the prices it was charging? It had to be dragged, kicking and screaming on this issue.

Why does the member feel that the NDP has to have an outreach office in Saskatchewan and have the taxpayers pay for that, as opposed to its own political party that should be footing the bill? Mr. Charlie Angus : Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that I struck a nerve with the Liberals when it comes to the abuse of the taxpayers. This is the party that invented it. My colleague is jumping up and down like an angry man. I am not surprised. I have certainly touched a chord with the Liberals.

The member has the gall to refer to mailings and to Bourassa, when Elections Canada has ruled that we did everything perfectly legally. That is different from what happened with the Liberals. It was a government that was corrupt from the beginning. It is as corrupt now. The Liberals are certainly angry. When their new leader came in, they were going to do politics differently.

All they have done in terms of their politics is continually attack the New Democrats for the fact that we stand up for regions, that we go to the House of Commons and talk with them about what is legal and how to do things right so that we can represent people. At the same time, the new Liberal leader is off selling Keystone XL for the oil lobby. We talk to average Canadians; he talks to oil lobbyists. I know that the member is angry. He is an angry old man, but that is because his party has been relegated to the wilderness for its contempt of the Canadian people. [ Translation ] Ms.

Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I first wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on his eloquent speech. As entertaining as his quotations were, I find the current state of affairs quite unfortunate. People spent years criticizing the Liberals when they were in power. Some Liberals are even making a lot of noise. I have a new seat in the House, and I had forgotten how loud it can get in this part of the House. People have been having strong reactions; they feel as though they are being attacked. There seems to be a culture of corruption and an abuse of Canadians' trust.

My colleague already mentioned this in his speech, but I wonder if he could elaborate. Could he comment on how the NDP would respect the trust that Canadians have placed in us to represent them, as well as the trust they will place in us in 2015, when Canadians vote in a new government to replace both corrupt parties? (1020) [ English ] Mr. Charlie Angus : Mr.

Speaker, I will try another one: Madam Speaker, the government each day and every day continues to show the Canadian taxpayer that it does not care. [...] One of the most recent examples of this is the use of the Challenger jets as flying limos, as party taxis, as a way of not having to sit with the regular folk. [...] In just a few hours of travel the government has spent the annual earnings of a family in Canada. [...]...if a year's salary spent on these flights home is okay. Let us ask seniors or farmers who just had the oil tank filled for the winter if these flights are okay. Who said that?

That was the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London . Come on down and show us that you stand for accountability and that you are not going to hide behind a government of corruption. Stand up and stand with us. We are calling on you. This is your chance. The Deputy Speaker : The member for Timmins—James Bay has been here long enough to know that he should address his questions and comments to the Chair, not to other members in the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier . [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would appreciate the indulgence of all members, because I have a touch of the flu. I may need a few breaks. I am pleased to join the debate on the motion before us today. Considering the commotion it is causing in the House, we seem to have touched a sensitive spot that needs to be explored. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so. It can be hard to have to speak following my colleague from Timmins—James Bay , who is always so eloquent and who was able to present various examples of abuse of power by the other two parties, but I will do my best.

He already gave all the best quotations, but it would be worth hearing them in both languages. This is an important moment for my colleagues from Quebec. Even though I have the opportunity to rise in the House to discuss the motion before us, I am disappointed because the motion speaks to something so obvious and so logical that I do not understand why we are even talking about it today. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they complained about this type of abuse of public trust and public money. Still today they are trying to pass themselves off as great defenders of the use of public money.

They ask Canadians to trust them with their money and to give them the responsibility to run the country. They say that they will not be like the Liberals, they will not betray Canadians and they will use the money wisely. If the Conservative Party had truly adhered to that principle, we would not be here today talking about this and instead might be discussing things that Canadians are interested in and concerned about. My colleague was talking about the cuts to veterans' services. CFB Valcartier is in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

That base sent an incredible number of soldiers to the front lines in Afghanistan. I have had the opportunity to welcome a number of them home since being elected. Every time, it is an unsettling and difficult experience for me. I am 28 and I see people younger than I am returning from Afghanistan, where they experienced things I cannot even begin to imagine. They need help from our government, but our government tells them that it has to balance the budget by 2015, in time for the election. The government tells them that they will have to wait a while because it does not have a social contract with them.

That is a matter for another speech. It is terrible to say such a thing. It is even worse to try to use such a defence to create a legal precedent. I am straying somewhat from what we are debating, but I am using this example to illustrate the Conservatives' bad faith towards those truly in need. There have been more than 10 cases of suicide among soldiers who needed help. According to the DND ombudsman's most recent report, we need 15% to 20% more mental health care professionals. Just recently, we heard that our francophone soldiers in Afghanistan had to obtain psychological services from the U.S. forces.

DND did not even have the decency to provide them with services in their official language. We are told that it is not possible to deploy psychologists and other professionals. That shows a poor understanding of national defence. That is the argument that I heard and I could not believe it. The U.S. can deploy psychologists and provide essential services to their troops. DND says that there was a problem, that it was not an ideal solution and that there might be a cultural or language shock, but that it would eventually resolve this situation when it has the time to consider it.

Such terrible things are being said. Then the government tells us that it supports our troops, but that we all have to tighten our belts. It says that everyone has funding problems and that everyone has to make sacrifices. Everyone has to tighten their belts, except for the Prime Minister 's cronies. That is another class of Canadians, the pampered elite. Personally, I do not get to pay the equivalent of economy class for flights worth $11,000. That never happens. I cannot afford that kind of luxury even with all the Aeroplan points I collect because I travel a lot.

(1025) It is a whole different story for people who raise over $3 million for the Prime Minister's election campaigns. Those people can travel on the Challenger. They are spoiled and can go wherever they want at very affordable prices. I should spend more time talking to the Prime Minister so that maybe I too can enjoy these privileges. I would like to experience that luxury sometime. I find the whole thing mind-boggling. There are no other words to describe how I feel about this situation. I am going to follow my colleague's example and give some quotations. I find them delightful.

Here is one that we have not heard yet today. I will start with the Prime Minister . At the time, he was an entrepreneur. He has worked hard in his life, and he understands the issues facing the middle class, people who do not have very much money. At the time, he and his wife owned a small business. He said: My wife, Laureen, and I ran our own small businesses. We had to pay our own health care premiums. We had to purchase our own supplemental health care coverage, like most people in the country.

We cannot afford to fly to clinics in the United States to get health care when things go wrong and we certainly cannot afford to get on Challenger jets to do it. He said that on October 1, 2005. Much has changed since then. Apparently, the Prime Minister can now afford to travel all over the country for various reasons. If I am not mistaken, he travels to many different places, not only in Canada but also abroad. That is a problem.

In the quote that I just read, the Prime Minister was trying to show Canadians that he truly understands the problems of the middle class and that he is there to listen to them and to ensure that their money is spent wisely. However, now that the Conservatives have a majority, it is too late to go back. We are stuck with them until the next election. We are stuck with people who regularly betray our trust. I feel shortchanged, and so do the voters in my riding. People voted for the Conservatives because they hoped to see something new.

The Conservatives played the game right, and many people put their trust in them. I can understand that. Unfortunately, people very quickly became disillusioned. It is rare to see people looking forward to another election. People are realizing that a lot of money is being spent and a lot of time and energy is being wasted. People want their elected officials, their members of Parliament, to work for them, to represent them in the House and to be genuinely deserving of their trust. When I visit my riding now, people ask me when the next election will be so that they can toss this government out.

The Conservatives have told them so many half-truths and have regularly shaken their confidence. Voters do not want an election so they can bring back the Liberals. On the contrary, my constituents want something new. They have not heard any policies from the current third party. I am still waiting. I would like to be able to debate policy, since that is my job. I was sent here by taxpayers and Canadian citizens to debate issues, present ideas and try to put forward solutions to make Canada a better country. I am still waiting for proposals from the Liberals to give me a little something to debate.

I imagine that we will see something in 2015, which is still a ways away. Regardless, people are looking forward to a change and to getting the government they deserve: a New Democrat government that will defend their interests and ensure that the taxes it collects—because taxes will have to be collected, as they are now—will be used properly to provide services to the public. Furthermore, a New Democrat government will not use public funds to help Conservative friends and backers live in the lap of luxury. That is completely unacceptable.

We saw that under the Liberals, and it is still going on under the Conservatives. In 2015 it will be time for a change, time to elect a New Democrat government. (1030) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are listening to this debate today and it is a wonderful attempt, so to speak, by the New Democratic Party to deflect attention from what actually is happening. We all know that the leader of the New Democratic Party travels using taxpayer funds, for example, to Washington to lobby against Canada.

Perhaps I will provide a little reminder to the NDP members that when they and their leader travel outside the country, they should be travelling in support of Canada, for which Canadians elected them to the House. However, more importantly—and more poignantly, I would like to say—let me point this out.

Parliament ordered the leader of the New Democratic Party to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee to respond to questions about the misuse of funds by the New Democratic Party to set up satellite offices in regions of the country where there is no elected member of Parliament from the New Democratic Party. This is the party that has been called upon to appear before the PROC committee, and the motion today is simply a partisan attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the NDP members have to respond to these actions. I ask the member the following question.

How does she feel about her leader being called in front of the PROC committee to respond to the misappropriation of taxpayer dollars? [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud : Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about two things. First, I can see that the Conservatives are trying to sidetrack debate by accusing the NDP of certain things, but Elections Canada has already cleared the party of those allegations. I would like to point that out to the member. Second, the people who sent me here did not elect me to represent oil and gas industry lobbyists. They sent me here to represent their interests.

Many of my constituents are concerned about this issue, and they are very pleased to hear the questions that the NDP is putting to the government and the concerns being raised about obvious abuses in the oil industry. I believe that I do my job quite well and that I represent my constituents quite well. I have no issues on that front. No one in my riding has come to me to say that Keystone XL is an excellent idea and that it will create a lot of jobs in the area. No one has said that. My constituents feel they are very well represented, but I thank the member for his concern, all the same.

However, we should be focusing on today's debate. That is what is important right now. I would like to see the Prime Minister appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explain his use of the Challengers. If my leader has to appear, the Prime Minister should have to respond to questions as well. It is unfortunate that I cannot hear my colleague's thoughts on that. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, indeed, the issue today is about the abuse of trust, abuse of the way in which tax dollars are being used inappropriately.

We have heard it from the mover of the motion and the second speaker from the NDP on this issue. I want to again highlight where a lot of that flagrant abuse has taken place, which is right from the office of the Leader of the Opposition who, in essence, is using a budget that has been allocated for leader's staff here in Ottawa. That is fully paid for by the taxpayer. He is taking staff from Ottawa and building an office out in Saskatchewan, where the NDP has not seen representation since 2004. New Democrats are, in essence, trying to set up a publicly funded political party.

This is something that the party should be paying for, not taxpayers through the Leader of the Official Opposition's office. My question to the member is this. How does the member defend her leader's approach to abusing the trust of tax dollars by creating this office? (1035) [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier has 40 seconds to answer. [ English ] Ms. Élaine Michaud : Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the member thinks that the louder he is, the better his point is, but it is not. [ Translation ] Right now, the offices are there to serve Canadians.

Those people are not doing partisan activities. I see the work that is being done and I have no qualms about standing up for the work those people do. Their work is in no way partisan. Whether we have MPs in a place or not, there is no reason not to go talk to Canadians, to see what their concerns are and to try to stand up for them properly. I know that is different from what the Liberals and Conservatives are used to doing. They assume that they know what is best for Canadians. However, we in the NDP want to know what is best for them and we will go on the ground to find out. [ English ] Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness . I would like to begin by reminding my colleagues that Canada is a vast country and an important, respected international player, and as such, it is an absolute necessity to have a government fleet of aircraft capable of transporting government ministers as they do their business on behalf of Canadians, when necessary and when it is appropriate.

Virtually every country on the planet has a similar arrangement and similar equipment, including all of our G7 partners. Our use of such aircraft is not only the most open and transparent of all these countries, but also the most necessary. I do want to take a moment to thank the fine airmen and airwomen of the Royal Canadian Air Force for providing such dedicated service to Canadians. Our fleet, including six CC-144 Challenger aircraft and five Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, is a crucial tool for the operations of the government.

Even in our increasingly connected age, the human touch is still fundamental to doing business. It is simply indispensable. Representatives of the government must travel around the country and the world on government business. Our fleet, along with our flight crews, maintenance staff, and many support personnel, make sure they do so quickly, efficiently, and safely. We require capabilities that guarantee we can rapidly reach every corner of our territory, from coast to coast to coast. This is precisely what these aircraft are bringing.

The dedicated VIP transport aircraft are operated by two squadrons, 437 Transport Squadron at CFB Trenton and 412 Transport Squadron here in Ottawa. Both these squadrons have a proud and storied history originating in the Second World War. The history of the 437 squadron goes back to 1944, providing crucial transportation in Europe. Today it operates the Airbus A310-300s, all designated as CC-150 Polaris aircraft. Only one of these, number 001, is operated in what one might call a true VIP configuration, and for good reason. It has been used by Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family.

The other four Polaris are configured as normal aircraft with cargo transport capabilities and air refuelling capability. The 412 squadron can trace its origins back to the Battle of Britain and D-Day. It was the squadron of John Gillespie Magee, Jr., the RCAF pilot who wrote the poignant and memorable poem High Flight only months before his death in 1941. The 412 squadron operates the CC-144 aircraft, the Bombardier Challenger business jets, in a VIP configuration from Ottawa's Macdonald–Cartier International Airport.

These aircraft are twin engine, long-range executive jets, offering rapid air transportation up to 5,930 kilometres and a maximum speed of about 1,000 kilometres per hour. The Challengers can quickly deliver passengers almost anywhere in the world and can be used in a medical evacuation role when required. It is important to understand that these aircraft are not sitting idle at a terminal just waiting for an urgent call to ferry a minister to a meeting. These are working aircraft undertaking either training or other military work.

For example, the 437 squadron used its Polaris air-to-air refueling capabilities to support CF-18 fighters in operations over Libya. The Polaris were also used to ferry Canadian troops back and forth from Afghanistan. It is important to realize that there are strict rules in place for how these capabilities are used. Most fundamentally, for security reasons, the Prime Minister cannot use commercial aircraft. We all understand that and we all appreciate it. Canadians would be somewhat concerned to see the Prime Minister flying on a commercial jet because of the public safety issues that surround him.

In addition, the use of the fleet is strictly governed by Treasury Board guidelines. Government administrative aircraft are only to be used for government purposes and government business when, first, the flight is being made to a point where there is no commercial air service, when no space is available on a commercial air service, or when because of difficulties in routings or time tables substantial savings of essential time can be made by using administrative aircraft in place of commercial aircraft.

The second instance is when official parties of some size need to travel together and significant advantage can be gained by using a government aircraft. The third is where security considerations render commercial travel impractical. The final one is when the aircraft is being used to transport visiting foreign dignitaries, where it is deemed appropriate or is in the best interest of the Canadian government.

(1040) The guidelines are quite clear. Ministers must thoroughly justify their use of government aircraft, and I can assure members that our officials thoroughly review each and every application. We understand that Canadians do not have the option of government aircraft and, therefore, expect us to ensure the use of our fleet is under careful scrutiny and the use of our RCAF fleet is a last resort, when commercial flights or other options simply will not permit the effective execution of government responsibilities. When the Prime Minister uses RCAF aircraft on his trips overseas, it is by necessity.

Again, I want to remind members that when the Prime Minister uses government aircraft, the RCMP is first of all responsible for the safety and security of the Prime Minister, and its advice is that he should not travel on commercial flights. As a standard practice, when the Prime Minister uses the Challenger to travel on Conservative Party business, the party reimburses the government the cost of an equivalent commercial flight. Finally, we have reduced the cost of ministerial travel on government aircraft by nearly 75%, compared to when the Liberals held office.

The Government of Canada is committed to a modern, flexible, and agile Canadian Armed Forces, supported by a professional multipurpose air force. It is always a great pleasure to talk about the great work of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and, in this particular case, the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Members in the House and Canadians across the country should be proud of their tireless dedication and their tremendous world-leading skills, and this pride should be equal whether our airmen and airwomen are conducting surveillance at home to defend Canada and the North American continent, or quickly deploying a fighter jet capability at home or for overseas operations, or shuttling equipment and personnel deployed on an operation, or as in the case of this motion, transporting government representatives as they do their required business on behalf of all Canadians. Mr.

Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent discourse in terms of the men and women from our squadrons who do such amazing work for us, and how we count on them. We certainly expect and trust that they will keep the Prime Minister and his family safe. That is government business, and I certainly agree with the member. I am glad to see that he said there need to be some very clear rules around transporting. This is not about saying the Prime Minister should not be able to travel. He is the Prime Minister of the country. He has many concerns.

In terms of the issue of making sure these rules are followed, when Mark Kihn was flown back and forth from Calgary on numerous flights, was he listed on the flight manifest as a member of the Prime Minister 's staff? He is clearly not; he is a party fundraiser. These are the issues we need to clarify. This is why I think hon. colleagues will be supporting this motion.

We want to make sure people are doing government business, but if people who are friends are being flown to baseball games, how do they get on the flight manifest, because I am sure the men and women of our Air Force are going to want to follow the rules. Was Mark Kihn listed as the Prime Minister 's staff or listed as a fundraiser?

(1045) Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, there are clear rules of who can use government aircraft and how it is done. At times when parties are with the Prime Minister or with certain ministers and there is a certain volume of people, they will travel together and a significant advantage can be gained by using a government aircraft on government business. In the case when the Prime Minister travels for personal reasons, he reimburses the Government of Canada at the equivalent value for a commercial flight, because he cannot use commercial flights; so taxpayers are not on the hook.

If he had been able to travel commercially, he would have reimbursed those dollars based on a commercial value back to the taxpayer. For safety, it is in our best interest that the Prime Minister travel on government aircraft. We will continue to make sure that the rules are tight and transparent and that people who are travelling with the Prime Minister or on ministerial delegations using government aircraft are accounted for and well explained. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, given the land mass of Canada and the many different regions and the responsibility of the Prime Minister to travel into the regions, one can appreciate why we have to provide aircraft support for him. My question is related to the issue of safety. Quite often most people might think about safety for the Prime Minister , but it actually goes beyond that in terms of flying on a commercial aircraft, for example. Having a Prime Minister on a commercial aircraft goes beyond just the personal safety of the Prime Minister. I wonder if the member would provide comment on that aspect.

This is something on which the RCMP, I understand, has also made significant comment. Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Winnipeg North for his comments. He is exactly right. I think that any Canadian would be somewhat concerned to see the Prime Minister getting on a commercial flight, knowing that because of the world we live in, the Prime Minister could be a target for those who hold ill will toward him or our country. Everyone on that commercial flight would be at risk. For that reason, it is important that the Prime Minister be flown on government aircraft.

Of course, all these aircraft are assets of DND and are operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Who better to provide security and protection for the Prime Minister of Canada when he is in the air than our own brave men and women who serve us in the Canadian Armed Forces? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, while I am on my feet, to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake . I know that he is strongly committed to working with Ukrainians in Canada.

He has spent tremendous time and commitment flying back and forth on government aircraft to make sure that things are being done as best as they can be for Ukrainian Canadians. We are talking about government resources. However, we did not get an answer from the NDP. The member is well aware that the Leader of the Opposition has been asked to sit before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explain his plans to open political branch offices across Canada, which clearly are not for government uses.

With the smoke and mirrors and the opening statements we have heard from our colleagues across the way, I am wondering if he could clearly state his position and understanding of the appropriateness of using funds for political offices being opened up across this country. Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment for his comments and for this thanks for working with Ukraine. The Ukraine is actually a good point in that I have travelled to Ukraine with the Prime Minister on government aircraft.

I have also travelled there with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on commercial aircraft, because it was the best option available for the size of the delegation we were taking. On the question of the hypocrisy we see sometimes in this place, the Leader of the Opposition is now having to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee to talk about the NDP using government resources for political operations in Montreal and Regina. It is completely despicable, and I think all Canadians are upset about it.

The motion today is about trying to turn the channel and distract from the NDP's own shortcomings, when its members are using government taxpayer funds for political operations across this country.

(1050) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to oppose the motion put forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay . Our Conservative government has strongly and consistently stood up for protecting taxpayers. That is why we have reduced the use of the Challenger for the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet by nearly 75%.

However, that said, unlike the NDP and the member for Timmins—James Bay , our government is responsible and lives in the reality that Canada is not immune from the threat of radical-led terrorism. As we recently saw from the good work done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canada Border Services Agency, and other law enforcement partners as part of Project SMOOTH, there are those who wish to harm law-abiding Canadians to further their radical political and social agenda.

Two individuals plotted to destroy a train bridge near Niagara Falls as part of an al Qaeda-inspired plot. If this is not a reality check that our country needs to take national security seriously, then nothing is. That is why, when it comes to national security, we listen to the security assessments of the RCMP. The RCMP handles the protection of the Prime Minister . The RCMP's National Division Protective Operations provides domestic and international protective services to the Prime Minister and the Governor General and their families.

It also provides protective services within the national capital region to ministers of the crown, Supreme Court justices, the diplomatic community, internationally protected persons, and others designated by the Minister of Public Safety as requiring protection. Additionally, the RCMP's National Division Protective Operations is responsible for the protection of designated federal properties, such as Parliament Hill grounds, the Supreme Court building, Rideau Hall, and the Prime Minister's residences, and for running the NCR command centre for safeguarding the public's safety during various events.

With few exceptions, I am pleased to say that there have been very few security incidents. Wherever the Prime Minister travels, the RCMP works to ensure that he and his family are kept safe and secure. Most Canadians would agree that it is an extremely important thing to do. This is not a perk, and this is certainly not a luxury. This is most certainly not an abuse of taxpayers' dollars. This is the reality of living in a world in which certain radicalized individuals want to cause harm to Canadians, to our government, and to our way of life.

The RCMP has rightly assessed that the Prime Minister cannot and should not travel on commercial aircraft. I would be hard pressed to find many Canadians who think that he should. I am not a law enforcement professional, but neither is the member for Timmins—James Bay , and I will take the assessment of the RCMP to heart regarding what is and is not safe. It is abundantly clear that the NDP is simply not ready to be trusted to govern this country. That party does not treat serious issues with the gravity they deserve. Securing the Prime Minister is not a partisan interest. It is in Canadians' interest.

Should a serious incident arise involving the Prime Minister, there would be serious economic implications and a great impact on this country. We should not be surprised that the NDP is the same party that voted against the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it a criminal offence to go overseas to engage in terrorist acts or to receive terrorist training. It also opposed our new tools in economic action plan 2014 to combat terrorism financing.

Those members even voted against the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, which gives more tools to our front-line border security guards to remove people from this country who are here illegally. They even voted against combatting human smuggling, which is very often a key fundraiser for terrorist groups. When it comes to national security, Canadians know that the NDP has quite a laughable record on the issue. Only our Conservative government can be trusted. That is why we take the necessary action to protect the Prime Minister and to protect this country, and we take it on the advice of the RCMP.

That is why we have also created the Wanted by the CBSA list, which helps to remove dangerous and violent criminals from Canada. Again, they are those who are in this country illegally. We have also increased the number of front-line border security guards by 26%. Our government also created Canada's first counterterrorism strategy and cybersecurity strategy. That is why we have invested nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to protecting Canadians from hacking and cyberespionage. The facts are clear. We have removed over 115,000 illegal immigrants since being elected in 2006.

While the member for Timmins—James Bay plays partisan political games, it is our Conservative government that is focused on the real issues that matter to Canadians.

(1055) While our government is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, the member for Timmins—James Bay is trying to take operational control away from the RCMP and away from those who work on the front lines keeping Canadians safe from national security threats. We are not just talking about the Prime Minister here. We are talking about all Canadians. We will take no lessons from the NDP on important national security issues, such as the proper protection of our Prime Minister . In fact, there is very little the NDP has to contribute on this serious issue.

This is the party whose leader bought into conspiracy theories that doubted the death Osama bin Laden. This is the party that has two deputy leaders, the members for Vancouver East and Halifax , who have content on their websites advocating offensive conspiracy theories that blame the United States, the United States of America, its government, for the horrific tragedy of September 11. This is the party whose member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that the First World War was “a war between the bourgeois who wanted to make more money”.

We all know that the NDP will never be serious on issues of national security. That is why it brings forward motions like this that seek to insert the NDP members into the process for which the RCMP employs experts. Rather than playing politics, our RCMP will give our front-line police officers the tools they need to do their jobs. We will give them the respect they deserve when they provide that advice, and we will not interfere on operational matters. Let us look at the facts. Canada has a world-leading economy. We have created a million jobs since the end of the recession.

We must operate within the bounds of the current reality in the area of national security. It is simply a fact of life that we must take steps to secure our leaders and our country, regardless of political stripe. That is why we are opposing the motion brought forward by the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay . Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, where to begin? We are talking about entitlement and breach of trust, and we have a government member who wants to focus on something else. That is fair. The government has a record of appointing people, who are in jail now, to head our CSIS oversight body.

We could go there, but I am not going to go there, because today we are going to talk about the motion in front of us. I did not hear anything in my friend's speech as to whether or not she believes in the following statement: That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister... which we believe should be used, ...should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family.

Is there anything in that statement with which she disagrees, and does she agree when her Prime Minister brings his buddies along to go to ball games? That is the question in front us. I would like a clear answer on that. Ms. Roxanne James : Where do we begin, Mr. Speaker? Is it a breach of trust? Is the member kidding me? That member has brought up issues when the leader of his own party has to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee about concerns that the NDP has violated the rules of the Board of Internal Economy.

I just want to make clear that the NDP has admitted that it is running an office in Montreal that is partially funded by the House of Commons budget for MPs' offices and the opposition leader's office. This is clearly in violation of the rules. Because of that, the leader of the NDP now has to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee. These activities violate the Board of Internal Economy guidelines that members of Parliament cannot use their budgets to fund activities related to the administration, organization, and internal communications of a political party.

When we talk about ethics, when we talk about where we begin, I think we should begin with the NDP. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I find it rather amusing to see the Parliamentary Secretary using thick markers to try to describe the well-known reality of the Prime Minister 's security. A bit like a child, she is laying it on thick, telling us that this is a tree, this is the sun, this is the safety and security of the Prime Minister. Let us be serious.

The issue is not the safety and security of the Prime Minister, but rather the discount fares the Conservatives have put in place using public money and money from some of the Conservative Party's donors. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether, just like in the cartoon of the Minister of Justice , she is going to use the Sea King helicopters to find some semblance of credibility? (1100) [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James : Mr.

Speaker, my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has already addressed that concern and indicated that those who have travelled with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have in all cases reimbursed the Canadian taxpayer for the commercial cost of that flight. However, in regard to the security of our Prime Minister and of this country, I will take the opportunity to speak about the serious threat that we have here in Canada. Canada is not immune to the threat of radical-led terrorism.

We only need to look to recent headlines in the papers with regard to people who have gone overseas for radicalized training to assist other countries in their wars and have come back to Canada. We need to think just recently about the VIA Rail plot and of the Toronto 18 group. We have to take security seriously. We have to ensure that our Prime Minister 's safety and security are foremost and paramount to this country. He represents this country. We need to keep our national borders and our country safe from all types of radicalization.

Most Canadians know that they can count on this Conservative government to do just that. Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is nice to get into the debate today and speak to this motion. The motion raises very serious concerns about the proper use of government resources and government funds, and it raises questions about accountability. First, to the movers of the motion, I have heard some members of the NDP talk about how they are vigilant in the public interest and public matters and issues that are important to Canadians, yet today we are dealing with this motion.

I do not think that this is at the top of Canadians' list of important issues to be dealt with. This is the same NDP that is now before the PROC committee to discuss its leader's actions in opening an office in Saskatchewan, where there are no NDP members. If we look at the job description, we see that it talks about assisting members of Parliament through outreach to their constituents so as to best represent them, but the NDP does not have any constituents there. The telling tale in the job description is under the qualifications, which ask for experience in election campaigns.

It is clearly a breach of government resources and House of Commons resources to open up an office to carry out partisan activities. That is coming from the NDP. Let me come back to this issue. Yes, we must hold the government to account. We need to know who flew on the taxpayer's dime and whether those costs were reimbursed in the appropriate manner. These are important issues to bring forward. Let us be crystal clear that we also understand that the Prime Minister cannot travel on a commercial aircraft.

Any time that the Prime Minister must travel, for whatever reason, he must travel under the protection of the Department of National Defence. Most Canadians and most parliamentarians understand and respect that. However, the use of government aircraft for party business is a broader pattern of public resources being used for Conservative partisan purposes. It goes well beyond shuttling top Conservatives to partisan events. We will look at some of the examples. Let us look at government advertising.

This includes tens of thousands, even hundreds of millions, spent on high-cost, low-information government advertising, such as advertising the government's action plan. These advertisements are clearly meant to sway Canadians toward the opinion of the Conservative Party and are not government advertising. It also includes over a quarter million, and still counting, to send out press releases. It goes on to talk about the government's websites. The government has just completely overhauled its websites and has moved away from providing information and toward more partisan advertising for the government.

We can then look at the Prime Minister 's new 24 Seven website, which shows the farcical videos launched by the Prime Minister's Office. There are four staffers spending their time and using government-owned equipment to create these videos of the Prime Minister and senior Conservatives to promote nothing other than themselves and the Conservative Party. Many of these videos have had only a dozen hits. This is not a very good use of taxpayers' dollars.

To come back to the use of government resources to shuttle around cabinet ministers, we still have the former Minister of National Defence being airlifted by a search and rescue helicopter out of a fishing trip that he was on. This just goes to show the very poor planning of the government on this particular issue. The minister knew well in advance that he had a meeting and a press conference that had been planned for weeks on that particular day. He could have altered his

schedule somewhat, but no, he decided to call in the resources of the Canadian military to airlift him out of a fishing camp. Let us get back to the use of overseas travel and using these government aircraft to ferry delegations around the country and around the world. It is an important task. We have to be represented in the world and we have to provide transportation to these delegations. The problem is that a lot of these delegations do not truly cross partisan lines.

(1105) In the past, when Conservatives went to the Ukraine and other places, they invited other members of Parliament from all parties to represent the government and Parliament. However, we have seen more and more often that they are only using it for their own Conservative MPs and their buddies. One only needs to look down the passenger list of some of these delegations to see that they are all well-connected Conservatives, including donors and fundraisers. It shows a partisan face to the world when this is done.

To summarize, yes, Liberals are very concerned about the proper use of government aircraft, and we should be vigilant about it. If these uses cross the line, it is only right that the governing party reimburse Canadians fully and fairly for the expenses at fair market value. Unfortunately, we keep seeing many examples of the Conservatives harnessing public resources for clearly partisan ends. The use of government aircraft for Tory officials only came to light through access to information. That leads to the question of what else might be going on that has not yet come to light.

Where is the total respect for taxpayers' dollars? This is a government that rode in on the high horse of accountability. It might have been a pink My Little Pony, because everything they said they would not do, they have done. Where is the transparency and accountability? Liberals will be supporting this motion. We look forward to hearing other members' opinions on it. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny to hear the hon. member for Avalon trying to lecture us, when he was faced with a decision that caught him unprepared, like all of his caucus colleagues.

It was the hon. member for Papineau 's decision to exclude Liberal senators from the caucus. It was an impulsive decision. The member for Papineau was probably thrown hard off his horse on the road to Damascus, because he had fought tooth and nail for years to keep senators in the Liberal caucus. However, what is pretty incredible is that, in the end, the hon. member for Avalon is clearly ignoring the fact that the Liberals have populated the Senate with organizers and fundraisers for decades. This practice was widespread among the Liberals. It was systematic, in fact.

Would the hon. member for Avalon like to recognize the wrongs of the Liberal Party and perhaps help his party emerge from its third party status in the House? (1110) [ English ] Mr. Scott Andrews : Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where that is going, but if he wants to talk about Senate reform, let us talk about Senate reform. The member for Papineau has done more for Senate reform in the last six months than either of the other parties in the House in the last six decades.

We are looking, on a going-forward basis, at appointing senators in a non-partisan way and removing the Senate from the powers of the Prime Minister . We are talking about senators being totally independent officers of Parliament, while the position of New Democrats is to abolish the Senate altogether. They clearly do not understand that they need the provinces to tell them that, and they know that is not achievable. Then we have the government on the other side wanting to continue appointing people. The Prime Minister has appointed more senators than he said he would.

I am not quite sure where that question was going. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will first comment on the member's last discussion on the Senate. As far as I can see, having elected senators retire and then be replaced by elected senators is a very good thing, because it brings accountability to the Senate. What I hear from Canadians is they want more accountability. They do not want a process that actually allows unelected people to decide who should represent regions that are also unelected. That is what the member is talking about.

That is what his leader has done. I will come back to the actual discussion. The hon. member has asked for openness and transparency. First, that is the idea of today's discussion. It is so we can discuss these issues. We are being very open. The reporting mechanisms are there. The Prime Minister , upon achieving office, made it a policy that anyone who is not on direct government business or is not a family member or a member of security staff should reimburse the taxpayer for the cost of the flight, and I think that is eminently reasonable. We have seen a 75% reduction in Challenger use.

If the member thinks there is a better solution, why did his party, when it was in power, not bring forward this policy of reimbursement to the taxpayers? If it is such a good idea, why did the Liberals not propose it when they had the opportunity? Mr. Scott Andrews : Mr. Speaker, I will start with the first part of his question because I do not know who he asked the question to. I know all about unelected senators because I defeated a Conservative who could not get elected and then they appointed him to the Senate. Two years later, he quit the Senate to run against me again.

He could not get elected again, and then was appointed back to the Senate. Therefore, if he wants to talk about appointing senators and elected senators—they cannot get elected to here but they appoint them over there—go right ahead. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up a point by my hon. colleague from Avalon. He was saying that what is important is not only who is on these flights, whether it be a Conservative fundraiser, but also who is not on these flights.

If the government assembles a group and allows Conservative MPs to be part of the group representing the country, and does not allow opposition MPs, Liberal and NDP, to be in that delegation, then that is also using government resources for partisan purposes. I wonder if my colleague would like to elaborate on that a little more. Mr. Scott Andrews : Mr. Speaker, that is a troubling fact. In this place, we are seeing more and more of that from the governing party. It is using these things for its own purposes and not using them for the collective good of Parliament.

Many times there are good reasons, for the collective good, to do things in the world and represent all parties. Ukraine is a great example of where all parties are supportive; there is no division amongst our support in the House. Canada is going there to talk about democracy and monitoring elections. What better way than to have all parties there, and to use government resources so that all parties can take

part in this? More and more, no matter what trip it goes on, the government tends to be more partisan. We only need to look at the recent trip to Israel, where the member for York Centre made it quite clear that his purpose was to get the million-dollar re-election shot. He was on the trip for his own personal re-election.

(1115) Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to know exactly where the party stands. I assume from what I am hearing from my friends down the way that they are going to support our motion. However, I want to talk about the question that is upsetting most people. It is not just about whether one pays or not; it is about who has access. I know that the Liberals had a lot of problems when they were in government about the entitlement piece, and hopefully they are working on that.

However, the question for the House, for the government, and for all of us is, is not about whether or not someone pays. No constituent of mine can phone up the PMO and say “I'd like to hitch a ride with you”. This is about access entitlement and the separation we are seeing between the political class and the everyday citizen. I ask my friend, is he going to support our motion, and would he support our attempt to stop this bandwagon of entitlement that we saw with his party when it was in government and that we see with the present party now in government? Mr. Scott Andrews : Mr.

Speaker, I did say clearly that we would support the motion and that the government must be held accountable for who flew on the taxpayers' dime and whether these reimbursements took place at an appropriate market rate. I did say that. Regarding his question of getting access to the Prime Minister , people can get access to the Prime Minister in several different ways. It does not necessarily have to mean flying on his aircraft. It could be by lobbying and the number of times that one is lobbied.

It does ask the question in the broader picture here of who has access to the Prime Minister and when. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the hon. member for Avalon refused to answer my question. The Liberal track record on the abuse of public funds is quite telling. In fact, at the time, the Conservatives criticized the use of the Challenger jets, which amounted to $1 million, according to the speeches we heard. That is a huge amount. Admittedly, the Liberals are difficult to match when it comes to their misuse of public funds, not to mention the meal-related expenses.

Would the hon. member for Avalon like to comment on this use of funds at the time? [ English ] Mr. Scott Andrews : Mr. Speaker, I would not like to talk about it because I was not here; I was only elected in 2008. I have no intention of trying to go back in time to relive things that have happened in the past. We can talk about the time that I have been here and the time for moving forward, and how we move forward in the future with these things. We can learn of the past practices from all political parties and all governments in all provinces, but I do not think it serves the debate. Ms.

Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to our opposition day motion, which reads: That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family.

Coast Guard helicopters, $16 orange juices, five-star hotel stays, in and out scandals, senator housing and expenditure scandals, unethical lobbying, and the list goes on. What do all of those points have in common? Shady Conservative ethics. Canadians want to believe that politicians fight for them in this House, and that every day in the work that they do, politicians are adhering to those basic principles, the importance of transparency, accountability, and ethics.

Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric we have heard from the governing Conservative Party, we have seen anything but that, whether it was the current Minister of Justice being flown around by Coast Guard helicopters; or the former minister of international development, who went abroad to talk about the importance of development in some of the poorest countries in the world and ordered expensive orange juice and stayed in five-star hotels; or fundraising friends of the Conservative Party, who were rewarded with plum positions in the Senate and then proceeded to blow taxpayers' money on shady housing and expenditure accounts.

Where are the days of the Reform Party? I come from western Canada, and I remember growing up at a time when the Reform Party took western Canada by storm. The rhetoric was very strong on the issues of accountability and throwing those out who had wasted taxpayers' money, who had indulged in the culture of entitlement that we have seen too often from previous Liberal and Conservative governments. Lo and behold, the Reform Party became the current Conservative Party and gained power.

We have seen that same culture day in and day out, rewarding themselves, rewarding their friends, and all the while telling Canadians that they have to tighten their belts and that the cuts are necessary for them to continue lining their own pockets. Let us look at those cuts. In the last number of years we have seen record cuts by the government. We have seen cuts to pensions. We have seen cuts to the public service. In fact, by 2015, we have been told there will be a total of $10.8 billion in cuts when it comes to public services.

This is in the areas of food inspection, aviation safety, environmental regulation, employment insurance, and the list goes on. We can look at the recent round of cuts that Canada Post has announced. Yesterday, there was public outrage over Canada's failure to engage in a proper investment in terms of our Canada Health Act. We have seen record environmental deregulation and cuts to important departments, such as Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, which are there to keep our communities safe.

We have seen a retraction in terms of our international obligations and the kind of investments that we used to make around the world in order to support communities that are dealing with challenges on that front. In my riding, perhaps the clearest indication of cuts has been the experience of first nations people. First nations people have always borne the cuts of government, whether it be Liberal or previous Conservative governments, but under Harper we have seen record amounts of cuts with respect to—

(1120) The Deputy Speaker : The member for Churchill has used the Prime Minister's name rather than his position. Would she not repeat that, please. Ms. Niki Ashton : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is just that it is a name that I repeat often, and Canadians repeat often. Since I have the opportunity, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou . When it comes to first nations, for the last number of weeks I have had a chance to travel on the winter ice roads, connecting with some of the most marginalized communities in our country.

At the doorsteps, I often hear people ask why it is that the Prime Minister is flying around with his jet and cutting favours for his friends. I am hearing this at a time when they have an underfunding of education, or not enough housing, or where there is no investment from the federal government in making sure that first nation communities have running water and proper sewer services. Where is the federal government when it comes to making investments to an all-weather road system, which the Province of Manitoba is investing in?

The federal government shrugs its shoulders and says it has nothing to do with improving the lives of first nation people. People on the ground, first nations people, indigenous people, and all Canadians, see a major disconnect. They see the ways in which the Prime Minister and his government are cutting favours for their friends. They are spending taxpayers' money to make their friends happy, all the while cutting essential services for Canadians. We know that the Conservatives spent $118,090 on the flights in question.

That is equal to old age security for 19 seniors, a GIS allowance for 20 seniors, survivor allowance for 16 seniors, or an average annual pension for five retired veterans. The cost of flying around the country and around the world, of flying around friends like Mr. Mark Kihn, the fundraising project manager for the Conservative Party of Canada, and flying around friends and donors of the Conservative Party, unfortunately, equals the same cost that would make people's lives livable.

When we are talking veterans' pensions or survivor allowances, I am sure that every single member on that side of the House knows constituents who are struggling and are hurt by the cuts that their Conservative government has brought forward. Yet, they sit by while their Prime Minister , who is enforcing these cuts, continues to spend money on this culture of entitlement, which they have indulged in as well. Words like “hypocrisy” come to mind when we hear about these kinds of expenditures.

We have to look no further than a record of statements, and there are many, where the same members, including the Prime Minister of the government, used to cry foul about these kinds of expenditures that they are now engaging in. I want to read a quote from the former leader of the official opposition, who is now the Prime Minister . He said: What Mr. Martin wants now is to have a 10-month election (campaign) where he can fly around the country on a government jet at taxpayers' expense, and he can throw enough money all over the country to cover up the stench of corruption.

The “stench of corruption” are strong words. They are words that are entirely applicable to the kind of behaviour we are seeing from the government today. The Prime Minister also said, in 2004: It's not a question that I'm hanging back. It's a question that I don't have a Challenger jet paid for by the taxpayers to fly myself and my people around the country.... Well, the Prime Minister now does have a Challenger jet that he can fly himself and his people around the country. What is he going to do about it?

We heard from the Minister of Employment and Social Development , who many years ago, as a member of Parliament in the opposition, said: Mr. Speaker, imagine taking a Challenger jet across the country at a cost of $55,000 for an 800 word speech. I think that works out to about $72 a word. I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Social Development is calculating the per-word dollar count that his government is racking up at taxpayers' expense.

There are numerous quotes by people who are now senior ministers in the Conservative government, including the Minister of Justice , that decry the kind of culture, entitlement, and waste of taxpayer money that we saw from the previous Liberal government. Yet, we are seeing that hypocrisy loud and clear as they sit by and engage in those kinds of expenditures, certainly fanning the flames of that stench of corruption that they decried so clearly.

(1125) I am proud of the position that we in the NDP are taking to shine a light on the waste, the culture of entitlement, and the hypocrisy that we have seen from the government. We are here to speak out on the fact that this is about priorities. The government is here to govern in the best interests of the Canadian people. Our message is that if the government is not willing to do that, then it is time to step aside and let us govern with the best interests of Canadians at heart. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I would also like to thank her for reminding us that a good, accountable government prioritizes the right things by investing in and supporting initiatives of vital importance to Canada. This government abandoned one such world-class initiative, the Experimental Lakes Area, a one-of-a-kind science program that helped us save waterways and learn about the environmental consequences of various elements. Can she talk about how a good, accountable government would make wise choices to save projects and initiatives such as the Experimental Lakes Area or to invest in new co-ops? Ms. Niki Ashton : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good question. It is clear that we have lost several programs because of this government's budget cuts. This proves how messed up its priorities are. The Experimental Lakes Area is an excellent example. In my home province, Manitoba, hundreds of Manitobans and Canadians opposed cutting that program. We all know that the government chose to protect oil companies and their interests rather than ensure that we had a way to do environmental protection research, which was the purpose of the Experimental Lakes Area.

Every day, every week in the House, the government puts corporate interests, such as big oil, and friends who fund its electoral interests ahead of the well-being of Canadians. Our motion today asks the government to put an end to that culture of hypocrisy and act in Canadians' best interests by making investments on the ground to ensure their well-being. Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny to see the party that will be relegated to the opposition benches for quite some time remain silent and let us carry the full weight of the debate on this important issue.

I thank the hon. member for Churchill for her speech, which referred to the Prime Minister . I would like to remind the House of another example of this government's twisted logic and contradictions: the series of cheques made out to Senator Duffy. At the time, the Prime Minister staunchly defended his chief of staff, saying that he had his full confidence, only to repudiate him later. Would my hon. colleague from Churchill like to draw a parallel between the current debate and the bad faith shown by this government in defending the indefensible? [ English ] Ms. Niki Ashton : Mr.

Speaker, there is absolutely a trend here. Time after time the government, whether it is Prime Minister or senior ministers, has prioritized the interests of friends, friends like Mr. Duffy and others in the other House, at the expense of Canadians. Where are the champions of accountability and transparency that were heralded by the Reform Party? Where are their friends, like Mr. Kihn who was involved with the National Citizen's Coalition, who fought for increased transparency? Those days are gone.

Canadians have gotten a whiff of that stench of corruption that has emerged with the government, and they want change. They deserve better. We are on Canadians' side in putting forward this motion and calling for real accountability on behalf of Canadians' real interests. (1135) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I referred to the scandal involving just Senator Duffy, but I also could have included Senator Wallin. We have lost count of this government's improprieties. At some point, there are limits to defending one thing one minute and then defending the opposite the next.

Talk about a contradiction. The government will have earned its fate. To continue along the same lines as my colleague, I really enjoy being in my riding, and I am sometimes embarrassed and surprised to hear some of the comments from my constituents regarding the Prime Minister and his government. People sometimes even go a little too far in their choice of words to describe the actions of the Prime Minister , who is abusing his majority. Personally, I always accept the will of the people. The issue we have brought before the House is a very important one.

We are talking about the proper, reasoned and intelligent use of public money. The Conservative Party's discount travel system is a very popular concept in the private sector. It helps people save money if they are frequent travellers or if they want to go on vacation for the first time in their life. However, the system is largely dependent on public funds—even money from Conservative contributors—which is truly scandalous, particularly since it is clearly not economically viable.

I am wondering why the Conservatives are defending the indefensible and why they feel they can deflect our attention by saying that they are acting with complete transparency, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence claimed. In an

article published in iPolitics , journalist Elizabeth Thompson demonstrated the exact opposite. She had to resort to the Access to Information Act to prove that one of the Prime Minister 's close family friends was able to use the Prime Minister 's Challenger at rock-bottom prices. There is no way the competition can match those prices because public money is what keeps them so low. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety was thoroughly incapable of proving that she was talking about real issues. She was completely off-track with her comments about the Prime Minister 's security.

She said that it is important to deal with terrorist threats and so on. I would invite her to meet with the Minister of Industry as quickly as possible, because he had this to say on October 1, 2001: There is something else the government can do. If the government wants to show confidence in the commercial airline industry, here is a suggestion. Will the Prime Minister park his Challenger jet and fly commercial skies as other Canadians do as a sign of faith that security works? That comment is over a decade old. Perhaps the Minister of Industry was lacking in judgment at the time.

That said, the parliamentary secretary could always meet with him to talk about it. However, he told the House that it is absolutely impossible, for security reasons, for the Prime Minister to fly on commercial airlines. That is perfectly understandable.

(1140) However, the Prime Minister must in turn respect all Canadian taxpayers by not engaging in this type of abuse to benefit such a small circle of friends. I raised the example of Senator Duffy because, like Mark Kihn, he is a major fundraiser. In Senator Duffy's case, he was able to put on a good show. He raised millions of dollars by making thousands of people laugh at Conservative Party events. In both cases, these men were given preferential treatment.

The government was even providing privileges erroneously, almost fraudulently, to these people who are so important to Conservative Party fundraising activities. Let us now talk about the invoices another Hill reporter mentioned and how much Conservative Party fundraiser Mr. Kihn was billed. Mr. Kihn is friends with the Prime Minister 's children on Facebook, which shows how close he is to the Prime Minister. For the same trip, no airline in Canada can come close to even double the cost that was billed to Mr. Kihn. There may be some airlines in the U.S. that charge that much, but even that is questionable.

How can my colleagues from the government, especially my colleagues from the west, the successors of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance, who defended integrity and transparency in Ottawa, continue to defend the indefensible, especially with their noses stuck in their iPads, computers, or newspapers? I just do not understand it. The only thing I do understand is that the Prime Minister apparently continues to keep his caucus in a yoke of ironclad discipline, unless he is in a really tough spot, as he was with former Conservative Party executive director Dimitri Soudas, who really went too far.

How many more of these incidents and abuses are my colleagues willing to tolerate after nine years of Conservative rule on the Hill? Let me be clear. Taken in isolation, what we are debating right now in the House is a mistake that we could consider excusing if the Conservatives would acknowledge their mistakes or their lack of judgment.

However, when we look at the big picture, we can point to the in and out scandal of the 2006 election; the robocalls to mislead voters and send them to polling stations that did not exist; all the Senate scandals; not to mention the problems of the Minister of International Cooperation, who had a great deal of difficulty deciding where to put his lunch box and sleeping bag on certain outings to the Quebec cottages of prominent Canadians; and of course we could mention the former minister of international cooperation, Bev Oda, who threw tantrums in order to be able to smoke in her room and treated herself to $16 glasses of orange juice.

It seems to me that there is a limit. Some of my colleagues were elected because of solemn promises they made. Their constituents truly hoped that they would clean up Ottawa. It seems to me that, at some point, some of them should stand up and say that the party is over, that those who abuse the system will be shown the door, and that they will openly revolt and say that this type of abuse will not be tolerated.

(1145) As the official opposition, we are pointing out serious problems that, when taken as a whole, are indicative of a well-established and deeply rooted culture. After nine years, this government has amply demonstrated the extent to which it has used public resources for personal gain. That is enough. We will form the next government in 2015 because Canadians really deserve better. [ English ] Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend across the way that I was not reading my iPad or my newspaper when he was speaking.

I was really trying to follow him, but he took such a pretzel-like turn in his speech that it was really hard to follow everything he said. Overall, what we are trying to get at here is the use of the Challenger jet for travel by the Prime Minister and ministers. All members in the House are aware that this government has reduced ministerial travel by over 75% since we took office, and that is a good news story for taxpayers. How can my friend across the way justify his party's use of taxpayer dollars to fund satellite offices in areas of this country where that party does not even have members of Parliament?

Could he address that question? [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend opposite for his question. I especially want to thank him for paying attention to my speech, unlike some of his colleagues who still have their eyes glued to their screens. That said, I have been active in politics for nine years, and I believe that, as a member of Parliament, I represent my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou first and foremost, but that I also represent all Canadians. This May 2 will mark three years since the orange wave took over and we began our terms.

There were 4.5 million Canadians across the country who put their hopes in us. People in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, supported the NDP and came to see us during our last caucus retreat there, even though we do not have an MP in that city. People who had not supported the NDP were happy to see one of their representatives in the House of Commons, an MP from Quebec, a member of the official opposition. Part of our job involves being on the ground and being available to people.

I remind my colleague that I think it is useful to meet with the groups who come to make representations on the Hill, but I do not think that that is the most important part of my job. The most important part of my job is meeting people directly, knocking on doors and going to see them wherever they are, all across Canada. [ English ] Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the previous question from the Conservative side. I was looking at the advertisement for a full-time position put out by the NDP. The advertisement was paid for with House funds.

The NDP is looking for somebody with a number of qualifications, including experience in election campaigns. I take issue with my hon. colleague from the NDP saying he is a member of Parliament for all Canadians. I wonder what his constituents would think if he went into his own riding and told the people who voted for him that he is really the MP for all Canadians. As members of Parliament it is important for us to represent all of the people in our ridings, whether they voted for us or not. It is not for us to say that we represent people in other parts of the country as well.

Party funds are available to pay for people in the NDP, for example, who want to resurrect the NDP in Saskatchewan. Does the member represent all Canadians, or does he represent the people in his riding? (1150) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté : Mr. Speaker, first, I do not agree with my colleague's statement that MPs do not represent all Canadians. After all, we are all gathered here in the House to truly represent the entire population. We are here to serve Canadians.

I do not understand why both the Conservatives and the Liberals are so determined to try to draw attention away from a debate that is really very important. The crux of the problem is that government resources that have been put at the Prime Minister 's disposal are being misused in order to benefit a group of close friends. I am reminded of the scandal involving Senator Duffy, not to mention certain Liberal senators. It started out as a seemingly minor thing, but then it snowballed into a major issue. This is only the beginning of the debate on what will no doubt become a major issue in the public arena.

We will therefore continue to stand behind our arguments in this regard. [ English ] Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak against the motion put forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay . As well, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board . Our government has the utmost respect for the men and women who serve as members of the police in Canada. As such, we take their advice with regard to safety and security very seriously and with due consideration.

Our government acknowledges the professionalism and expertise of the members of the RCMP, who are responsible for decisions relating to the safety of the Prime Minister . This is why the deployment of RCMP assets is based upon operational considerations. While the opposition is busy filling its time with motions such as this one, which it brings forward only to play partisan games, our government is actually delivering results for Canadians and their families.

Instead of putting forward ideas to grow our economy, create jobs, balance the budget, and reduce taxes, we are debating a motion that reeks of partisanship. When I return to my riding this weekend, I do not think that the constituents of Brandon—Souris will be pleased to know we were debating what plane the Prime Minister should be on. The people of Brandon—Souris want all members of this House to work on passing legislation approving funding that would build new roads and bridges, get our grain moving, and open new markets for our products.

It is unfortunate, with everything we could be debating today, that the member for Timmins—James Bay has decided to put partisanship ahead of getting results for Canadians. I would also like to use my time to speak about what our government is doing to stand up for law-abiding citizens. While the opposition is playing games, we are concentrating our efforts to ensure Canadians have safe communities. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we are committed to combating the scourge of human trafficking.

We have kept our promise to Canadians to work to make communities safer places for Canadians to live, work, and raise their families. Like many Canadians, the Prime Minister looks to the judgment of the RCMP in matters of security. This government wants to create an atmosphere for Canadians to prosper as individuals and groups. We want our children to be safe online. To this end, we have recently introduced the protecting Canadians from online crime act, to protect children and youth from cyberbullying.

As the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness recently said: Too many families across this country have experienced the devastating effects of cyberbullying. Our government will not stand by and watch the online harassment of our children. Thanks to this national campaign, we are informing parents and youth about cyberbullying and how it can amount to criminal activity. This is what Canadians care about. They want their children to use the Internet responsibly, and they want others to be held responsible for their actions online. We believe prevention is worth a pound of cure.

That is why, when the RCMP recommends that the Prime Minister follow certain security protocols, we listen. We listen to the advice of experts and, importantly, to the people of Canada who voted our government into office in 2006 and who expect that we not only keep security at the level it was when we took office but that we make Canada a safer place for law-abiding Canadians. When we took office, Canadians expected this government to put their rights before the rights of criminals, which is why we are keeping criminals off Canadian streets with mandatory prison sentences.

People want to be able to live their day-to-day lives without having to worry about dangerous and violent criminals working in the shadows of their streets and communities. In a country like Canada, the safety of the individual should be a given. The government has no higher calling than ensuring the safety of its citizens. The Prime Minister does not stop being Prime Minister of Canada when he goes home in the evening. What I am explaining is that the leader of a developed nation should not be a target of ill-willed individuals.

It is shocking that the opposition thinks so little of Canada's international reputation that it would, for petty partisan reasons, seek to put the security of the Prime Minister at risk. It concerns me that the NDP is not aware of the very real threats in our world. We should not live in fear, but we should certainly practise prudence.

(1155) Our government is reasonably cautious because we know that we are not here for ourselves, but on behalf of our constituents and to serve Canadians. We continue to do this in many different ways, whether through long-term investments in community infrastructure or by balancing the budget so that future generations can benefit from this government's fiscal prudence. We have always looked to Canadians to tell us where their priorities lie. I am concerned that NDP members have consistently voted against many of our government's measures that Canadians have asked for.

Let me provide a snapshot of what they have voted against: giving victims more information about criminals convicted of victimizing them, ending criminal record suspensions for child molesters, ending early parole for white collar fraudsters and drug dealers, cracking down on human smugglers, stopping prisoners from making frivolous complaints, repealing the so-called faint hope clause that gave early parole to convicted killers, cracking down on drug dealers who target children, ending house arrest for serious and violent criminals, and creating tougher sentences for desecrating war memorials and for those who kidnap children.

The opposition has voted against all of these. We will not take any lessons from that party on how best to secure our country. We will work hard to secure Canada's reputation on the world stage and to make sure that we leave a better Canada for future generations. That cannot happen if we do not work seriously on issues of national significance, such as providing appropriate security for the Prime Minister . That is why Conservatives will be opposing the motion by the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay . Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr.

Speaker, following question period yesterday, I referenced in a point of order the dates Monday, March 17, and Tuesday, March 18. The record should indicate that the dates were in fact Monday, March 24, and Tuesday, March 25, respectively. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his speech, even though he chose to debate our motion in a surprisingly roundabout way. In fact, I am wondering if he even read the motion or whether he focused only on the speech he was told to give.

I would like to reread the motion for the House's benefit: That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family. Can my colleague explain what is so partisan about this motion, which he is so awkwardly speaking out against? (1200) [ English ] Mr. Larry Maguire : Mr.

Speaker, anyone who looks at the priorities of the government versus those of the opposition would see very clearly that I was referring our priorities, thinks like security, better communities, and safer homes and streets for families and children in this country. That is very relevant because it points to the fact that the NDP members have voted against all of the things I outlined in my presentation this morning.

If the opposition has time to worry about the jet that the Prime Minister may take in situations like this, I think it has its priorities wrong, which should be making sure that we are fulfilling the needs of families across this country and the voters who elected us all to the House of Commons. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when there is a delegation representing Canada, does my hon. colleague think that the government should be excluding opposition members of Parliament?

Should there not be some representation from different viewpoints in the country when a Canadian delegation goes to an international event? Is that not a misuse of taxpayers' dollars, because it makes the delegation somewhat partisan? Mr. Larry Maguire : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear why the delegation was travelling in regard to the recent situation in Ukraine. The opposition parties in the House were not clear where they should come down in regard to whose side they were on and the hon. member's leader who was not sure about the seriousness of the situation.

So there was a decision made to move forward with the delegation as quickly as we could. I commend the Prime Minister for taking a leadership role among the whole G7 in regard to activity in this area. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion by the hon. member of the opposition. I think it is important to be clear on what this motion is actually proposing. The motion is not attempting to prevent the Prime Minister from using the Challenger aircraft for security reasons, although some have suggested that it is.

The opposition seems to recognize the security needs established by the RCMP for him to travel in this manner. The motion is also not about the fact that the NDP is using House resources to open a political office in Saskatchewan, a point that has often been raised in this discussion today. What the motion proposes to do is to restrict who can travel on the Challenger with the Prime Minister. I did some research on the use of government aircraft like the Challenger. Our government has reduced the cost of ministerial travel on government aircraft by nearly 75% compared to when the Liberals held office.

From a Treasury Board perspective, I can remind this House that in budget 2009, we announced a spending freeze by all departments on travel, hospitality, and conference expenditures. Then, in 2010, we froze these expenditures at 2008-09 levels for two additional years. In 2011, we announced a new directive on the management of expenditures on travel, hospitality, and conferences to replace the existing hospitality policy.

Each year, departments have to publish their total annual expenditures for travel, hospitality, and conferences, including an explanation of the main variances from the previous year's expenditures. In economic action plan 2012, we committed to modernizing and reducing the back office, and identified ways of reducing travel expenses by using online tools, such tele-conferencing, video-conferencing, and virtual presence. In economic action plan 2013, we implemented measures to cut departmental travel spending by over $42 million, or about 5%.

In all, between 2008-09, the base year for the travel cap, and 2011-12, government-wide travel expenditures went down by over $240 million. Our government has taken considerable action to reduce travel expenses in the government. These efforts have been part of our government's overall effort to save taxpayers' money. However, getting back to the opposition motion, the motion is not intended to save taxpayers' money, as few opposition motions ever are. The opposition is attempting to suggest who can and cannot be onboard a Challenger flight with the Prime Minister . Let us think about that for a moment.

Canada is an incredibly diverse and unique country. It is also vast and large. As every member of the House knows, air travel is a fundamental part of the work that we all do. As much as we all travel, for the Prime Minister , travel is significantly more extensive. Given the huge amount of time we all spend in the air, many of us try to use that time as productively as possible. I know that recently I read a tweet from the member for Calgary Centre-North who uses her air travel time productively to read her departmental briefing binders.

For some of us, air travel may also be a time to meet with Canadians, fellow members of Parliament, or other members from different levels of government to discuss items of mutual concern. Recently I enjoyed a flight with a local first nations leader. The point is that the huge amount of time we spend in the air can be very productive in our work as members of Parliament. I would submit that it would be no different for the Prime Minister .

To arbitrarily attempt to restrict who can and cannot sit onboard with our Prime Minister , in essence, would deny the leader of our country the same opportunity that we as MPs enjoy.

(1205) Given the significant amount of time our Prime Minister spends in the air, I feel it is important that the Prime Minister have the opportunity to have on board those passengers deemed necessary. We live in a democracy. We do not live in a dictatorship where we limit who elected officials can and cannot travel with. The same principle that applies to members of Parliament, in my view, would apply to our Prime Minister and that is why I am speaking against this motion.

I would hope that all members of this House ask if they believe that there should be restrictions on who can or who cannot sit next to them on the same aircraft because, in essence, that is what the opposition members are suggesting by tabling this motion for debate. I submit that is wrong. This motion is not about costs nor is it about security. It is the opposition attempting to arbitrarily restrict and deny who the Prime Minister can share an aircraft with. Our Prime Minister was elected to lead our great country. Canada today is standing tall and is the envy of many around the world.

I will leave out the many talking points on where Canada leads in so many different and important areas. However, I submit it is the role of our Prime Minister, and not the opposition, to decide who is on board to make the most productive use of “wheels up” time. Should the opposition ever form government, it would be free to set policy for aircraft use by the Prime Minister. If, as government, it would like to delegate that authority, the opposition would be welcome to do that.

However, to date, I have certainly not observed any examples of the opposition delegating any authority to the third party on who visits Stornoway or not. Canadians have made it clear that it is our Prime Minister and not the opposition who makes these decisions, and I ask all members of this House to oppose the motion for the reasons that I have given. (1210) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite. We are well aware that the Prime Minister has to travel to various locations.

However, we need to put this into perspective. Under the regulations in effect in Parliament, only staff of the Prime Minister's Office or people who work in the House of Commons have the right to be on board the Prime Minister's private planes. Anyone else has to pay the full price of the flight. We learned that people who travelled with the Prime Minister were required to pay only $260, when we know that a similar economy class flight with Air Canada costs between $600 and $800. What is the reason for this price difference, and why were these party donors on a flight paid for by taxpayers? [ English ] Mr.

Dan Albas : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the member's own party's motion. There is no mention of, and the motion has nothing to do with, dollars. Again, as my speech says, it attempts to restrict the Prime Minister from whom he may have along with him. If this member had issues, then maybe that should be part of the motion. However, I will remind this House that this is government policy the Prime Minister follows, they are government jets used for government business, and there are specific provisions on how the Prime Minister may carry.

Unlike the Liberals, this Prime Minister set the policy that if people are on board who are not there for government business, for security or whatnot, they should pay their fair share. If that member has an issue with that policy, then the New Democrats should table a motion to address that question. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when there is a delegation representing Canada, I wonder if it is also a policy of the current government to exclude opposition MPs whenever a convenient rhetorical argument can be found for doing so.

I ask the same question of this member as I asked of the previous member, and I hope he can give a better answer. When the government prevents opposition MPs from joining a delegation representing Canada that includes government MPs, is it not using taxpayer dollars for a somewhat partisan purpose? Mr. Dan Albas : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiment, but let us focus on what the question is at hand.

When we have an election and someone is named prime minister, that person represents the Government of Canada and whoever decides to go on an official Government of Canada delegation is decided on by that person and his or her staff. If the member wants to join an interparliamentary group and travel as a parliamentary delegation, he can join those groups and he can advocate for those budgets that come to the House to make sure he can participate in them. However, who goes on trips and represents the Government of Canada is exclusively the Government of Canada's decision. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St.

Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on his very insightful speech today. I would like the member to please go over, with all parties in the House, particularly opposition, how important it is for the Prime Minister to have that opportunity to invite people on the jet in terms of the business of Canada. Could he expand on that?

(1215) Mr. Dan Albas : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliment and I will certainly try my best to answer the question in the limited time. To be frank, the motion that the opposition parties have put forward do not represent some sort of appeal to protect the taxpayer. In fact, every time we bring forward motions and budgets that do exactly that, they vote against them. It is important that the Prime Minister be able to use that air travel time as productively as possible, the same as we do.

It was this Prime Minister who took the leadership that was absent from the Liberals and made it so that not only are there reductions of 75% to Challenger use, he also put in place a policy to make sure that taxpayers are fairly compensated. Again, if they want to bring up those facts, then they should actually put forward a motion that speaks to it and not remain silent. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot .

We have heard a lot of discussion on many different topics with regard to government costs and the rationale for certain procedures. However, there have been a lot of comments that are really off the topic. We have a very simple proposition before the House that the official opposition brought forward, which I gather the other parties do not want to support. I want to read it into the record to bring us back to the issue.

My colleague from Timmins—James Bay brought forward the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family. It is not about security of the Prime Minister or the need for him to have security. It is not about whether the Prime Minister should have a plane.

It is not even about whether his family should be on the plane with him, and it is not about people having access to the plane to do government business, so let us clear that all up because some people have been wandering off and making comments as though we had challenged that premise. The facts are those. The motion I read in is what the discussion is about, or should be about. Sadly, it has gone off in other directions. That is the choice of members, but I just want to bring it back for Canadians because this is about trying to bring back accountability to this place and to government.

My mother was mayor of Ottawa for a while and she had a driver. Most people who knew my mother knew she was a terrific person, a great mother and not a bad mayor, but she was not a great driver, so many people were happy with that. However, the purpose of her having a driver was for her to be able to do her business and to make sure that she was able to do her business on behalf of the citizens of Ottawa. It was not a fancy car, just a basic car, and she used it for the business of the city. The same should apply to our Prime Minister , who has to conduct business on behalf of citizens of this country.

Where it gets blurred is when people accompany the Prime Minister who are just friends and they have access. I also want to bring into the debate that this is not about the repayment, although there are issues there because if we look at the repayment costs, there are some really good deals going on. Most people who try to get a flight at Christmas, I think, pay more than $250 to go from Calgary to Ottawa, but maybe that is just me. We will set that aside. The motion is not only about that; it is also about access.

The government seems to be arguing that because some money is paid back, it is okay for friends of the Prime Minister to jump on board with him and fly around the country for social events. It is not okay, and why is that? I have noticed in the last number of years, and we have talked about this government and previous governments, that there has become quite a void between the political class, which is creeping, and everyday people. That is what this is about. It is about trying to bring back some sensibility of what these entitlements are for.

They are there for the Prime Minister to do his business, not to have his friend from Calgary, whom I am sure is a fine friend, but why is he on the plane with the Prime Minister to go to social events? A constituent of mine or of any member of the House cannot call the Prime Minister and say that they have a friend who wants to go on a flight with the Prime Minister, and they know he is going from Calgary to wherever and can the friend jump on board. They cannot do that. Why? Because they do not have access. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the entitlement.

We are talking about access to these services. What the Conservatives have done, and it happens when governments and parties have been in power for a while, is that they start to slide and slip and make excuses, and say that they will pay the money back. I am sure many MPs have had to explain in their constituencies and to their base that “I know you are upset that this gentleman got a ride with the Prime Minister, but he paid it back, so it is okay”.

(1220) I suspect that many people would follow up and say that they cannot get on board with the Prime Minister , or friends of theirs cannot, so why is that okay? The Conservative government has started to rationalize its behaviour in a way that is distancing itself from everyday Canadians and in fact from the accountability program that it came in on. I was on the committee for Bill C-2, the Accountability Act. I remember well the Conservatives saying that we had to change the behaviour of government and that government should no longer act in an entitled way.

They brought in some measures that our party supported. Some of them have not been realized, and that is for another speech, but the premise was that we needed to see more accountability. It was also really about ethics and about this seeming distance between citizens and the political class. There was this notion that if someone knew someone in the PMO or in government, they could get access, they could have favours done, and they could get jobs and appointments to agencies, boards, commissions, or the Senate.

It was getting out of hand, and we agreed with the government in 2006 when it brought in the Accountability Act. We agreed with the spirit of it. However, what we have seen in the last while—and there is quite a list—is that there is a behaviour that tends to creep into governments after they have been in power for a while. At that point we see the rationalization that certain senators had to be appointed “just because”. We have heard it many times. However, the government did not have to appoint those senators. It could have appointed other senators, but it chose not to.

It could have appointed people who did not have connections directly to the Conservative Party to agencies, boards, and commissions, but it did not. The premise was that the government had to put those people in because they would help with its agenda and those people would help the government get there. That is where we have seen this kind of rationalization creep in and take hold, to the point where many people I know in the Conservative Party are very alienated right now.

They thought that the Conservative government of the day and its predecessor parties were about bringing accountability to Ottawa and bringing an end to these entitlements at the highest level. It is really about that. It is bringing us back to that discussion. In the case of planes, should those planes be used only for government business? That is all we are talking about here. It is not about anything else. It is also about the spirit of what the Conservative government was talking about way back in 2006, when it came into power. Mr.

Speaker, you received that mandate as an MP with the party ticket that you ran on. You did it for what you thought were the best reasons to be involved in public service—to represent people—and you were lauded for it. Many people would say that you were elected on that basis. We are trying to bring people back to that conversation. We are trying to say that when it comes to government services, they are there for the people. I will make reference to my mother again. When she ran for office—and she passed this on to me—she always said that running for office is like a job interview.

We go door to door and we put our resumés forward to ask if people would hire us to represent them. That is what elections are about. In between elections, we work on their behalf. I sense that we are starting to see that idea slip a bit around here. I sense that people are starting to say that they deserve this car or that entitlement. What happens is the people who are hurting right now, such as seniors and veterans, wonder who is representing them. At the end of the day, this motion is not just about planes: it is about entitlement, and it is about bringing all of us back to ask what we are here for.

These public services, planes in this case, are purchased by taxpayers, by the citizens. Who are those services there for? Who has access to them? This simple, straightforward motion is just to clarify that question. For those who disagree with the motion, I would ask them how they will rationalize it to their constituents and tell them that it somehow is not fair. There is nothing wrong with voting for this motion. It will not affect you. In fact, people might laud you for getting behind a motion that might bring you back to why you got involved in politics in the first place.

(1225) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague really placed this issue where it needs to be. This morning we have seen all manner of banter and side-talk, but the issue is on the fair use of resources. It is not about a witch hunt. We were told by the first Conservative speaker that government resources are to be used for government business and that there are strict rules in place. Also, we know the Prime Minister needs to be able to use the Challenger because of security. Our motion certainly recognizes that.

Those points are bedrock in terms of life in the 21st century for a world leader. The question arises when the Prime Minister flies to Sarasota, Florida, and needs the Challenger jet. That is okay. Then we can expand that, and he flies down to New York to watch a baseball game. That is okay, but why are party fundraisers travelling on that jet and getting extraordinarily low fees in terms of their payback? I would ask my hon. colleague if he wonders how these flight manifests are set up.

How is it that the Conservatives tell us there are clear rules in place, yet people who do the fundraising work of the party are able to fly on flights that are supposed to be clea