Debates of April 1st, 2014

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has five minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a couple of words of congratulations to the member for Scarborough—Agincourt on his many years in this place. One thing is for certain, that his love and affection for his family is something that we have all known and something that, when I was first elected, he talked to me about. I congratulate the hon. member and wish him good luck.

I want to complete what I was talking about before question period, and that is how disappointed I am that a motion like this was brought forward in the House. An entire day has been devoted to talking about the fact, as the Leader of the Opposition in question period said, that in over eight years, somebody has joined the Prime Minister on the government Challenger jet five times.

Let us take a look at what the government has done with respect to the Challenger jets. This is a government that, when in opposition, campaigned on the fact that the use of the Challenger jet was out of control by the previous Liberal government. We campaigned on the fact that when we were elected, we would change how that is done and would significantly reduce the use of Challenger jets. The use of the Challenger jet by both the Prime Minister and members of cabinet has been reduced by some 75% since we become government. What that has enabled us to do is to sell four of the six Challenger jets because they are just not being used.

Moreover, this Prime Minister put in place something new, which was that when the Challenger was going to be used for non-governmental purposes, the equivalent cost of a commercial flight would be reimbursed to the Department of National Defence. That is why the Conservative Party has repaid thousands of dollars to the Department of National Defence and why, in instances where the Prime Minister has used the Challenger for personal reasons because he cannot fly any other way but through secure government aircraft, he also reimburses the taxpayers the equivalent cost.

We also heard during question period today the Leader of the Opposition say that he could not find any equivalent fares that were paid by some individuals. I have in my hand the fares of WestJet. It is a commercial airline. The opposition was unable to find fares. I found 12. I will stop at 12, but the list goes on. The fares are $282, $261, $266.10, $261.58, $266.10, and on and on.

Ultimately, with this motion New Democrats have clearly signified that they actually have nothing to talk about of any substance because they know, like all Canadians know, that when it comes to issues that actually matter to Canadians— balancing the budget, cutting taxes, supporting small, medium and large job creators—this government is on the right track.

Moreover, when we talk about the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadians know that it was this government which ended the decade of darkness we inherited from the Liberal Party and increased the budget for our armed forces by some 27%. We bought new aircraft, the Globemaster. We all remember the sad spectacle when there were international crises and Canada had to beg and borrow from our international allies to get our troops around the world. Those days are done and our allies know that they can always count on Canada.

The list goes on. It is this government and the leadership of this Prime Minister and this cabinet and the support, of course, of all members of Parliament on the Conservative side that have helped restore Canada, that have seen us through the global economic downturn. New Democrats are bringing silly motions like this forward because they know full well that on all the issues that matter to Canadians, this government is on the right side of Canadians and will continue to be.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member, I understand that if he looks, it is possible to find a fare to $200 and some—I think the figure that is used for the repayment is $260—but the seats on those airplanes will not provide access to the Prime Minister.

People travelling on the Challenger jet are travelling as part of an inner circle. We can look at Mr. Kihn and his association with the Conservative Party, the fundraising and all of the things he has done. I am not impugning the work he has done on behalf of the party, but it is understandable that Canadians would question this and wonder about it. It is obvious that people would question why this individual is entitled to spend that kind of personal time with the Prime Minister.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a close personal friend of the Prime Minister. He has been a long-time close personal friend from long before he was actually elected Prime Minister, long before he was elected leader of our party, and long before he was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance Party before that. Is the NDP actually suggesting that once one becomes Prime Minister of our country, one is no longer entitled to have friends and that is all done? Does the Leader of the Opposition not have his friends over to Stornoway, the government-funded residence for the Leader of the Opposition? Does he not bring people in his taxpayer-funded limousine? I think he probably does. I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

The Leader of the Opposition himself indicated that it was five times over eight years. We are devoting one full day of debate in the House of Commons to discuss five occasions when a good friend of the Prime Minister was on a Challenger jet with the Prime Minister and actually repaid the cost of that flight. When Canadians take a look at this, they will understand and know full well why they can no longer trust the NDP. It is because they stand for nothing.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned equivalent cost. I am curious. When he talks about equivalent cost of seats, is he seriously trying to tell the House that a seat on a private jet is the same as an economy seat on a chartered flight?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada can only travel on a secure government jet. He can only travel on the Airbus or the Challenger. He has no opportunity to travel on any other type of government aircraft.

Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that when the Prime Minister of our country travels on the Challenger jet, no one can travel with him? In essence, what the opposition is saying is no one can ever travel with the Prime Minister. He cannot have any friends, and if he does, it is not good enough just to pay what a commercial equivalent would be. One would have to pay thousands of dollars more, so no one would ever be allowed to be on that Challenger jet. That makes no sense.

I do not think Canadians would expect that type of standard. Canadians understand the job of a prime minister is a very difficult one. When they look at what we have done by reducing the use of the Challenger jet by some 75%, allowing us to actually sell four of the six jets, and when they look at the thousands of dollars the Prime Minister has personally repaid because he is forced to travel in this fashion, they know we are on the right side of Canadians. They look at this motion and see a silly NDP doing silly things to try to score cheap political points. That is why the NDP will always be on that side of the House.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think my colleague across the way protesteth a little too much. What we are talking about here is not the Prime Minister's ability to have friends or that he should not have friends, nor are we questioning his ability to travel with his family on the Challenger jet. What is being debated here today is use of those resources for partisan affairs and for friends of the Prime Minister to be travelling on a government plane. Two hundred and sixty dollars during the peak period just does not cut it. No one believes it.

Whether it is more or less, can my colleague justify that the Prime Minister can use the jet for business other than government business and for business other than transporting his family for security reasons?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes. The Prime Minister is not supposed to just stay in Ottawa. The Prime Minister, like any other Canadian, is entitled to take time off. He is entitled to vacation. His job is not to sit at Sussex Drive like some kind of captive and not move, and God forbid he should actually take a flight somewhere else. He does not have the option to call up WestJet and book a flight. He does not have that option. He can only travel on secure government aircraft. He has no other option.

What the member is saying is passing ridiculous. She herself admitted that she had not researched any part of this issue. She had no idea of who was actually on the Challenger jets, yet she is coming before the House trying to waste an entire day on a topic she did not even research.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At no time did I say I did not have any of the information. I said my information may not be as extensive as his.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not think that is a point of order. This often occurs when we have a dispute as to what was said.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary wish to make a comment?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to table, in both French and English, two pages of fares from WestJet indicating the actual costs. The member for Newton—North Delta just said that there were no such fares. There are some 12 fares.

I seek unanimous consent to do that so that I can provide the additional information that the member was just looking for.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to table these documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

I am pleased to rise in the House today, on this opposition day, to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I will read it for the benefit of my constituents.

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.

Here is the reason we brought forward this motion. Just last week, a reporter from iPolitics discovered that a government plane, paid for by taxpayers, had been used to fly Mark Kihn, one of the Prime Minister's good friends and one of the government's main fundraisers. In our opinion, the issue is important enough for us to take a day to discuss it.

Today, Conservative members are trying to undermine our position by saying that this is not important, that we should not have set aside a day for it, and that we should be talking about the economy instead. Personally, I feel that it is an economic issue. The government says that certain services have to be eliminated and that it will not be able to make federal health transfers at previous levels because there is not enough money. However, we can see clearly that the Prime Minister is using taxpayers' money to help his Conservative buddies. Therefore, this is an economic issue, in my opinion.

It is also an ethical issue. The Prime Minister is fine with flying one of his friends around the country at a ridiculous cost. I too would really like to be able to say to my friends that I will use taxpayers' money to show them a good time and that if they need to get to such and such a province, I will organize a meeting with some people there and slip it into the expenses for my parliamentary work. That would get them a free trip. Things do not work like that in Canada. Unfortunately, it is an issue for which the current government and the Prime Minister fought when the Liberals were committing the same kinds of swindles. Once again, here we are confronted with a done deal, and that does deserve our attention for a day.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that we think the Prime Minister should not have any free time and should not spend any time with his friends. He thinks that we are mean because we do not want him to have a social life. That is not at all what we are talking about today. We are talking about the fact that the Prime Minister travels in a secure plane. Even though I do not share his political opinions, I think it is important that the Prime Minister, his family and his children travel in a secure plane. A country like ours must ensure that he receives the protection he needs. If that protection comes in the form of a secure plane, that is fine by me. However, if one of his friends boards that plane, and if that friend is the guy who runs Conservative fundraising campaigns, he should pay more than $260 to board the plane. That just makes sense.

The parliamentary secretary is trying to convince us that the Prime Minister's jet provides the same class of transportation as a WestJet plane. I have news for him. Maybe he does not fly WestJet, but I can tell him that the experience is not at all the same. We are talking about a private jet with food and alcohol.

I would like to talk about the hourly cost to operate that plane. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but it costs taxpayers $11,000 per hour to fly the Challenger. Now they are saying that the Prime Minister's friend, who is probably rich enough to pay more, should not have to pay more. The Conservatives are trying to convince us that this is good for taxpayers and that the $260 will go back to them. I think that is shameless sophistry. That is why we wanted to spend the day talking about it.

Now I would like to read an alarming quote from the Prime Minister in 2005, during the Liberal reign, which was just as murky.

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, often at exclusive cocktail parties where big Liberal donors pay $5,000 a ticket to discuss public business. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Liberal culture of entitlement goes on. The public must be given a chance to put an end to it.

Who said that? Our current Prime Minister, right before the end of the Liberal reign. I am tempted to say the same thing to him now and ask if he thinks this is all right. I find this a little disheartening.

Sometimes I walk around my riding and meet young people and seniors alike. I often visit low-income housing areas, which people seem to like. They tell me that it is the first time an MP has come to meet them and make them feel important. They often ask me questions, especially about my age. They like seeing a young woman in her 30s who is active in politics. They ask me what it is like in Parliament, and whether they can still trust our system. When these people ask me that question, I sometimes think of scandals like this one and I have to think about how to answer them. Can they still trust our system?

Sometimes I feel as though if I say “no”, that politicians can no longer be trusted, I will destroy all their hopes. However, my conscience always tells me to look at what the Prime Minister and his cabinet are doing, and look at what the Liberals did in the past.

This is Canada. We have a wealth of natural resources and raw materials. We have good universities and can become the richest country in the world. However, Canadians have been shafted by the government so often that many are living in poverty. People have to use food banks because they cannot make ends meet. Seniors often come to see me. They have rotten teeth and need to go to the dentist, but they cannot afford to go and are not doing well. Then people ask me if they can still trust our political system. I am tempted to tell them to ask the Prime Minister, because my own trust is somewhat lacking right now.

However, I do not want to say no to them. I try to tell them that there are good people in every party. I hope that a new party will be elected soon because people want a change. There are honest people. Some members do good work for their constituents. Some Conservatives, Liberals, independents and members of our party have values and are ethical.

However, we have a Prime Minister who is willing to fly his friends around to participate in fundraisers. We have a government that introduces bills to completely change our electoral system, which will change the democracy of our country. I find that disheartening.

What I find even more disheartening is to see that the Conservative members are not even listening to me. We moved a motion and, since this morning, we have been hearing a lot of sophistry. They try to ridicule our arguments. They do not even have the decency to listen to what we are saying. If they engaged in this discussion, then they might realize that this is indeed an abuse of public money. If they truly believed in ethics and respecting public money, then they might ask for more from the people who travel in our Challenger jets.

We are simply asking that the Prime Minister stop bringing people with him on his plane because it is a secure aircraft and it is the Prime Minister's plane. It is not a limousine or a flying taxi. This plane should not be used for the Prime Minister's friends. It is a plane that should be there for his safety.

If the Prime Minister wants to take some to time to go see his friends, then he is free to do so. A Prime Minister does not work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year. The Prime Minister just has to pick up the phone if he wants to talk. If he is on a plane and he wants to have a conversation, then he can pick up the phone and talk to his friend. I find this disheartening.

I hope that the members who still have a bit of sway in their caucus will stand up and remind their colleagues that they fought for ethics. It is important to fight for ethics and I thought it was meaningful that they fought against the Liberals because the Liberals had a culture of abusing public money. Nonetheless, once a party is in power it still has to stand for ethics, which the Conservatives currently are not.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you review the Hansard transcript of what the member was just saying. I believe she used unparliamentary language, the f-word.

The f-bomb in French and English both start with f, and they both kind of translate to the same meaning. I do not believe that is parliamentary language that we should be adopting here. She may admire the Liberal leader for dropping the f-bomb this weekend at a charity event, but we do not need to start emulating that type of language in the chamber.

What is kind of laughable is that this is all the NDP has to talk about today. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has already said today, there are only eight occasions in the last eight years when private individuals have accompanied the Prime Minister on the Challenger. In each and every case, those individuals have paid commercial fare to accompany the Prime Minister to go to an event.

The opposition has agreed that the Prime Minister has to travel by government plane. That is the only way that is safe and secure. Often when he is travelling on personal business or partisan business, he will be accompanied by family members or close personal friends. Those people who accompany him also pay their way. Whether they are flying on commercial flights or on the Challenger, they are paying their way according to commercial rates. The taxpayers have been refunded. This whole debate is just ridiculous.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I take it that the parliamentary secretary is wanting to raise a point of order on his first comment. I did not hear anything unparliamentary, but, of course, we will check the record and get back to the House as the need may be.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it happened eight times in the past eight years and that there are more important matters. Even if it happened only once, it would be one time too many.

This is not about whether or not eight times is too many. It amounts to one misuse of public funds every year. My colleague said that it did not happen often enough to be taken seriously and to represent an ethical problem. Really? What are they talking about? That does not make sense. If I steal something from a grocery store, I am not going to tell my constituents that it is not serious because it only happened eight times. However, that is what my colleague is saying. That is ridiculous.

With respect to the other part of his question, the F-word is not part of my vocabulary. However, he says that I said it. If that is the case, I apologize, because I did not mean to. However, I really do not believe that I used such colourful language in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's comments, she talked about the misuse of public funds and made reference to the Liberal Party. I find it somewhat interesting that it was not that long ago, days or possibly a week, when the leader of the official opposition, the leader of her party, the New Democrats, took money that had been allocated for staffing of the leader's office to establish “outreach” offices in provinces like Saskatchewan and Quebec.

In essence, these outreach offices are no more than political party offices that are being established at the taxpayers' expense. That is the reality of what the leader of the NDP is doing.

I question the member on whether she would apply the same code of ethics to the leader of her own political party and the manner in which he is abusing tax dollars, and make the suggestion that he should repay that money to Revenue Canada.

If the NDP is going to have a political office in Saskatchewan, it should be the NDP that pays for the office, not the taxpayer.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is typical of the Liberal Party to say that it would seem that a few weeks ago the leader may have misused public funds. The use of the conditional in that sentence indicates that it cannot be true.

I invite my colleague to come to my Montreal office. I will show him what our employees do. In my case, my employees prepare householders and help me write press releases, among other things. They are completely non-partisan. They help me with my work as an MP and not with my partisan work. We have never engaged in that kind of activity.

The Liberals and Conservatives are all about entitlement. When they form the government, they raid the public purse for partisan ends. That has been going on for far too long in our country.

It is time to put an end to this charade and to elect an ethical party that will do things differently and stand by its principles for a long time, even if it is in power for a long time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

With respect to the recent point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I recognize that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has withdrawn the remark in her comments. On that basis, I will consider the issue closed.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the NDP motion before us about the misuse of taxpayers' dollars.

It seems that the Prime Minister and his friends have been wracking up flights on government Challenger aircraft as if these jets are their own personal planes. Access to Information documents reveal that the Prime Minister is increasingly using Challenger jets, not only for his own family's travel, but for personal friends and Conservative Party fundraisers.

Furthermore, the government has changed the rules so that it only has to reimburse taxpayers an amount equivalent to economy class airfare. Those jets cost nearly $4,000 an hour to fly, yet the Conservatives, after changing the rules in their favour, only reimbursed taxpayers an average of $260 a flight. Wow. No wonder they are using these jets so frequently for personal and partisan reasons; they get to travel like rock stars but pay seat sale rates.

When average Canadians are looking to book a flight, they tend to go online, compare prices and schedules, then choose the best deal. They wait for seats to go on sale because they have a budget to worry about. However, not the Conservatives. They have devised quite the scheme to get taxpayers to subsidize their non-government-related travel.

iPolitics, through an access to information request for documents, found that the Conservative Party has reimbursed the Department of National Defence 17 times, for a total cost of over $37,000, but the actual cost of the flights in question is about $118,000. Let us not forget that taxpayers were also on the hook last year for about $50,000 for a paint job for one of these jets, after the Conservatives decided to paint it Conservative colours.

I speak on behalf of the majority of British Columbians when I say that the Conservative Party is unrecognizable from the party that people once hoped would come to Ottawa to clean up the Liberal legacy of corruption and entitlement. The Conservatives said they would make changes once in Ottawa, but instead Ottawa has changed them. I have three examples to illustrate this point.

The first example is with respect to the Senate. The Conservatives promised not to nominate new senators but went ahead and appointed 59 of their closest friends, including Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, and Patrick Brazeau. The Senate is under investigation. A Senate expense scandal showed a complete disregard for ethics and transparency. The NDP says that it is time to roll up that red carpet. The record of the Conservatives on the Senate shows they are no different from the Liberals when it comes to a sense of entitlement.

The second example is with respect to the Conservatives abuse of Parliament, specifically time allocation. The Conservatives have shut down debate more than 50 times over the past two years. That is more than any other government in Canadian history. There is a constant use of in-camera proceedings in committees, thereby shutting Canadians out of the proceedings. That severely restricts studies. The Conservatives also pick pro-government witnesses.

When it comes to contempt, the 2011 election was triggered after the Conservatives were found to be in contempt of Parliament for misleading parliamentarians and refusing to provide key details on proposed bills and their cost estimates. The Conservatives record of abusing Parliament as a democratic institution shows they are no different from the Liberals when it comes to transparency and accountability.

The third example is with respect to the Conservatives unfair elections act. The bill would remove powers from the Chief Electoral Officer. That individual would be stripped of investigative powers as well as the power to engage in public education. The bill would make voting much harder for vulnerable Canadians. It would end the practice of vouching, and voter ID cards would no longer be accepted to confirm identification. The unfair elections bill would change political financing rules in favour of the Conservatives. It would increase allowable levels for individuals to contribute, from $1,200 to $1,500, and it would give an advantage to wealthy Canadians by allowing—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs is rising on a point of order.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to check what the debate is about. I thought we did the elections debate yesterday. If we are on the debate that I thought we were on, I think the member is being very irrelevant.