Debates of April 1st, 2014

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively. I think you have been very patient. We have been very patient. Again, the member has a speech, which he has obviously crafted, that has nothing to do with the motion before the House. It is not relevant, Mr. Speaker. I would ask, through you, that the member speak with some relevance to the motion, which is that government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes.

If he objects to that, then he should state that. If he supports us on that, he should state it. However, he should be relevant to the debate in the matter before the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The Chair is looking at the motion that is before us. In that motion, it states:

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 it goes on, from there.

As is the practice in this House, members are, and have been, granted latitude in terms of what they speak to.

This motion, by my reading, references government purposes, implicitly I guess, which asks the question: What would government purposes be?

If members want to talk about what ought to be considered government purposes, then I think that is within the relevance of the motion, and the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre can continue.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I consider aid to the civil power a government use. I consider the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family in transit a government purpose. I consider an international request for the use of our aircraft and military personnel in dire circumstances, where people in various nations are at risk, to be both a government and humanitarian purpose, in accordance with the values of Canada. I know that the member is new and does not understand the Canadian Armed Forces, but hopefully that clarifies it.

In that situation, transport was also provided by one of the Challengers, a Polaris, and three of our new Globemaster aircraft. Also three CH-146 Griffin helicopters were on the ground for medical evacuation, mobility, and coordination, which is a government purpose in a humanitarian cause overseas. However, I do not want to put too fine a point on the notion of government purpose here. Humanitarian operations, such as those in the Philippines, show that Canada is a global player and that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are prepared for a vast range of missions.

As we know, one of our military's defining contributions to international peace and security was in Afghanistan, where our armed forces were employed for more than a decade. We will always remember their efforts and their sacrifices. We know these would not have been possible without the right equipment provided by our government.

One of the shining examples was the 429 Transport Squadron, which was an integral part of our military's mission in Afghanistan since 2002. As part of the squadron, the CC-130 Hercules tactical airlift detachment logged over 1,800 operational flying hours on more than 320 missions in the Arabian Gulf from January to August of 2002. In 2003, the squadron successfully delivered 30,000 pounds of materials to a bombed-out runway in Kandahar while under direct small arms and rocket fire. With the introduction of the Globemaster in 2007, the squadron began to deliver troops and trade to Kabul, Kandahar, and Bagram, making a vital contribution to the Canadian and international efforts there.

When we discuss the use of government aircraft we should understand how they enable the Canadian Armed Forces to do their incredible work and in effect project Canada around the world to our allies in a very positive light. This work is crucial to the security of Canadians, whether they are assisting civilian authorities in response to floods at home, helping local authorities rescue Canadians in danger, providing humanitarian relief to those in need around the world, or contributing to security abroad with our international partners. The Canadian Armed Forces help keep Canada and Canadians safe every single day. They use the right equipment to do it, whether on the ground, sea, or air.

The stories I have shared today are just some of the examples of how our military aircraft contribute at home and abroad. They transport representatives of the government on government business and are indispensable to helping our men and women in uniform keep Canada strong and free.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise you that I think our House leader was absolutely right when he reminded the member that he was not speaking to the motion before the House this afternoon. He did it twice. Obviously, the member disagreed. However, I do have some sympathy for member for Etobicoke Centre, because the Prime Minister's Office has asked him to do the impossible, which is to defend the indefensible.

In the motion before us, we are asking that the government use government jets for government business. I agree with the member that we have a lot of Canadians who have bravely served our country in the armed forces. Absolutely, they have. However, if I ask those very veterans whether they think that Canada's government jets ought to jet around Conservative fundraisers, I suspect I would not find a single one who would say that it would be a good use of taxpayers' dollars. That is what the motion before us today is all about.

I know that the member will listen to the debate today as attentively as I did earlier when the member for Brandon—Souris, who to his credit actually did speak to the motion before us, tried to trivialize it as if it were no big deal. The cost we are talking about here is $118,000. That cost is the equivalent of old age security for 19 seniors, the GIS for 20 seniors, the survivor allowance for 16 seniors, and an average annual pension for 5 retired veterans. Is the member really saying that the ability to fly fundraisers across the country is more important than the well-being—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her dissertation, which highlights the incredible lack of understanding on that side about what government business involves and what our aircraft do. I just laid it all out, including their use for international purposes, aiding civil powers, securing and protecting Canadians, and projecting the image of Canada and our great Canadian Armed Forces abroad. It just demonstrates that the members opposite do not understand, and the very new House leader is possibly just smarting at the fact that he lost the other week.

Other than that, if the hon. member needs further clarification on what the Canadian Armed Forces are and what some of their equipment actually is, I am prepared to sit down over a coffee and explain it to her.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referenced the use of government jets by the Canadian Armed Forces, which is clearly an effective and efficient use of government assets. Would the hon. member disclose to the House the number of times he has travelled on a Challenger aircraft, to what locations, who was onboard, and what was the parliamentary purpose involved?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It is zero, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Etobicoke Centre for his words and support for the Canadian Armed Forces and his point that these assets are used by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Today's debate is about the NDP members trying to turn the channel and distract from the attention they are getting because their leader will have to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the illegal use of dollars being funnelled into political operations in Montreal and Saskatchewan. We also know that they use House resources to interfere in byelections in Montreal.

Would my friend from Etobicoke Centre want to comment on how our government, since coming into office, has really reduced the use of government aircraft?The Challengers in 2002-03, for example, had over 2,000 hours of logged time flying around ministers, the Prime Minister, and the Governor General. In 2011-12, the latest data I have show that the Challengers were used for only 574 hours. In addition to that, we actually reduced the travel costs of all ministers using commercial and government aircraft by over 23%.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question and the great work he does as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I am very much looking forward to the appearance by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

With regard to the Challengers, absolutely, their use has been reduced, which goes to the judicious use of this aircraft for good reason. However, all of those missions where the aircraft are used are looked at thoroughly and completely and the missions evaluated for their cost-effectiveness.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of today's opposition motion by the member for Timmins—James Bay, because it identifies an abuse of the public trust, which, unfortunately, is part of a much larger pattern by the Conservative government. In this case, we are talking about the use of government planes to transport Conservative Party fundraisers around the country.

Let me be clear. I am not disputing the use of government jets to transport the Prime Minister, his family, his security detail, or even public servants assisting the Prime Minister with government business. To me, the line is crossed when party fundraisers are flying on government jets. As we have now learned, that was a regular practice for the Conservatives. In particular, the flight logs reveal that Mark Kihn, who lists his job as a fundraising projects manager for the Conservative Party, has been a regular passenger, travelling with the Prime Minister on government jets every year from 2007 to 2012.

While this may seem to some a narrow issue for an opposition day motion, it tries to shine a light on a failure by the Conservatives to recognize the importance of respecting the line between the public interest and party interest. On those grounds, it is clearly wrong to use government jets to transport Conservative Party fundraisers.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this example illustrates a larger pattern by the Conservatives, which is to seek every partisan advantage for themselves, whether by using their majority to change the rules or by running as close to the line as possible when it comes to the existing rules. We have certainly seen this in Bill C-23, where the Conservatives have included a provision exempting fundraising expenses from election spending limits. Spending limits, as many will know, were introduced in Canada in the 1974 Election Expenses Act in an attempt to level the playing field for elections, so that those with the most resources would not automatically win elections.

Public support for spending limits as an essential part of electoral fairness has always been and still remains very high. The comprehensive Canadian election study conducted in 2000 specifically asked about this and found that 93% of Canadians supported spending limits for candidates and political parties, but what this motion points to is an attempt to get around those kinds of spending limits by using government resources for partisan purposes. Both the transport of Conservative Party fundraisers on government jets and the attempt to undermine spending limits in Bill C-23 violate the fundamental sense of electoral fairness that is an essential part of our Canadian democracy.

These attempts to skirt the rules on election spending limits are not new for the Conservatives. In fact, they began with the first omnibus budget bill. In that bill, the Conservatives used their majority to eliminate public funding for political parties. Normally, in seeking to change fundamental rules in our democracy, we would expect the governing party to consult widely and seek the broadest support for changes to the rules. We would expect this in Bill C-23, and we have not seen it. We would certainly expect them to hold those kinds of consultation and not to sneak in changes through what should have been a technical budget bill.

As in the case of Bill C-23—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is rising on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the point of order that was raised by the NDP House leader just a few minutes ago, that we want to make sure that the debate on this motion is relevant. What the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is saying has absolutely nothing at all to do with the motion at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates the unsolicited advice that members are offering about relevance. The Chair is mindful of the question of relevance. It has been pointed out more than once that members are given significant latitude to speak about a motion and the context surrounding a motion. Having said that, I would also remind all hon. members that what they say in debate ought to be relevant in some way to what is before the House.

I will return the floor to the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, let me say that what I am talking about here is a pattern of seeking partisan advantage, in every possible way, by the other side of the House.

The motion today speaks to the question of using government jets to transport Conservative Party fundraisers. I am saying that using them to transport fundraisers is clearly not a part of government business and clearly not what was intended for those jets. It is not an isolated incident. I am connecting it to all the other cases where the government has tried to seek advantage under the rules around fundraising.

I believe that I forgot to say at the beginning that I am sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

For me, the broader pattern for the Conservatives of eliminating public funding for parties, exempting fundraising spending from spending limits, and taking Conservative fundraisers along on government jets is one where Canadians clearly deserve better. In the case of the Conservatives, we have a party that promised better when it campaigned for office on the issue of accountability.

Today it must be somewhat painful for the old reform party supporters to see the Conservatives say that they comply with all of the Treasury Board guidelines on the use of government planes, when they are clearly missing one of the fundamental guidelines, which is that the use of government planes must be for government purposes. By no stretch of the imagination can we qualify transporting government fundraisers as a government purpose.

The Conservatives promised to do better than the Liberals when it came to the use of public funds and accountability. However, it is not good enough for the Conservatives to say, as they have repeatedly this morning, that at least they are not as bad as the Liberals when it comes to the use of government jets. That is hardly a defence for transporting fundraisers on those jets. It may be an improvement over the Liberals, but both parties developed a sense of entitlement when they were in office that I am sure rankles ordinary Canadians, as it does me.

The motion before us today is fairly simple. It does not try to address all of the aspects of the Conservatives' pattern of seeking maximum partisan advantage, whether by stretching the rules or using its majority to change those rules. The motion is very simple: Should the Conservatives be able to shuttle their party fundraisers around the country on government jets? I think that most Canadians would agree with me; the answer to that is a simple no.

What did we hear on this topic before the Conservatives were in government? We have heard extensive quotations in the debate this morning from members of their party, criticizing the Liberals for their misuse of public funds. It is hard for me to imagine how difficult it must be for Conservatives to stand up and speak, especially if they come from that old reform tradition in the Conservative Party. How do they stand up and speak on this bill today when they were such strong champions of accountability?

[An hon. member]

Can we get to hear some of those quotes?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of them this morning, and I am not going to indulge in them again now.

My point is that we have a pattern; we have a pattern of stretching the rules. When we looked back at the last election and the robocalls that were made, we were not able to identify exactly who was responsible. We see this pattern of pressing the lines and using every advantage. We have a judge saying that the Conservative Party database was used to make the calls that attempted to direct voters to the wrong polling place to suppress voting. With that, along with a pattern of exploiting every advantage and pushing the rules to the limit, we have to wonder whether the Conservative Party has not at least created the atmosphere that makes it responsible for this kind of election abuse.

I find myself speaking to a very simple motion. We heard from the Liberals, eventually, that they plan to support it in the House. I would be interested in knowing if there are any Conservatives on the other side who would say that the motion is very simple. They should maybe all say it. The motion is very simple. It says that government resources should be used for government purposes. I cannot see what they would disagree with in the motion.

I have been accused of being naive, as well as off topic, this morning, but it is such a simple motion that it would seem easy for the government to stand up with the other parties to say that this is what accountability means. “If we are champions of accountability, we will only use public resources for public purposes”.

Again, the Conservatives have tried to push the issue off to some kind of attack on the Canadian Forces or on the Prime Minister's security detail. No one on this side of the House is doubting that the Prime Minister cannot travel as an ordinary Canadian can every day. He cannot simply go out and take public transit. We know that is true. The security threats are quite great.

Nobody has attacked the Prime Minister's use of the jet, even when it is for personal use. He is going to have to do that, and he does repay the public treasury. However, that is not the question. The question is on the inappropriate extension of the use of those public resources for partisan purposes, which is what we have in front of us.

It is unfortunate that we have to have these kinds of debates in the House of Commons. It would seem to me to be common sense that a Conservative Party fundraiser does not get on the plane. They should use ordinary transit, which the party pays for.

The Conservatives have said that they are billing back and paying for the resources they use. However, this is not the question. It is on the appropriateness of putting that person on the plane.

Now, we can dispute whether they are paying back the real cost of those flights, and it does not look to me like they are. However, even if they were paying the real cost, I think Canadians still have a problem with it. They would ask why we have party officials going to fundraising events to raise money for the Conservative Party on this jet.

At the end of the day, I hope to see all members standing in favour of accountability of public funds and putting a very strict line between public and partisan interests, something which the Conservative Party seems to have trouble doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a little rich coming from the other side. When the Prime Minister is travelling, and if he is going to a partisan event, he does reimburse the Government of Canada based upon a commercial equivalent flight. He sometimes travels with larger groups, and people with those types of events will also reimburse the government.

However, it is pretty rich for NDP members to suggest that there should be this clean separation, which I agree with. I agree there should be a clean separation between what we do as parliamentarians, as government officials, and what we do from a partisan standpoint.

I want that member to stand in his place and say that it is inappropriate to use taxpayer funds for setting up regional political operative offices in Saskatoon and Montreal; that it is completely unreasonable and unwarranted to use government resources to fund householders and ten percenters to go into ridings that are having byelections, in contradiction, not only to the rules of the House, but of Elections Canada.

I want him to also talk about how his leader has to now appear before the procedure and House affairs committee to explain the actions of the NDP on the misappropriation of taxpayer money.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so.

The problem is that we have the Conservatives standing up in this House and, unfortunately, saying things that they know not to be true.

When they say that the NDP misused resources in byelections, unless they have been asleep, they know that Elections Canada has ruled there was no inappropriate use of House of Commons' funds with regard to the byelections.

When the Conservatives talk about the offices that the NDP set up for outreach, they know these were approved in advance by the House of Commons and that they meet all of the rules of the House of Commons. These offices are trying to provide service to all Canadians.

The NDP maintains party offices, pays party staff, and takes care of party functions for itself. It is very surprising to hear the hon. member stand up and say things which he knows are not true.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my esteemed colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I have been in the House from the beginning of this debate, and the Conservatives have done nothing but try to divert attention. In fact, my colleague across the aisle just tried once again to deflect the interest of the public.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tried to suggest that we wanted to jeopardize the Prime Minister's safety, and yet the motion that we moved refers specifically to his safety. The root of the problem is the inappropriate use for the benefit of certain friends, including, for instance, someone who is friends with the Prime Minister's children on Facebook.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of what the current Minister of Industry said in 2001. He called upon the then prime minister at the time to park his Challenger jet and fly commercial flights as other Canadians did to prove that he trusted the security measures in place. It seems to me that the Conservatives are talking out of both sides of their mouths. It is absolutely unbelievable.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for the Prime Minister and his family and the demands that being Prime Minister places on his family life. I have absolutely no objection to his family making use of the Challenger jet to try to maintain what little privacy and family life they have. I have absolutely no objection to that.

Let me restate that this motion points to none of those things about the use of those jets. It is about Conservative Party fundraisers ending up on the plane, which is paid for out of public resources, in an attempt to help raise money for the Conservative Party.

With regard to the security of the Prime Minister and his family and their ability to maintain family life, I am completely supportive of the use of government jets to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for a truly thoughtful presentation on this whole issue. It was well balanced, taking security into account, and the family life of our Prime Minister, who has a very demanding job.

We reiterate that the motion we are here to debate today has nothing to do with that. If we look at the wording of the motion, it 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.

As my colleague mentioned, we have already taken that into consideration. The motion does not go as far as many of the cabinet ministers sitting on the front bench would have gone if there had been a different government in power.

We have all read quotes, and during the day members have heard innumerable of them, which questioned why the Prime Minister could not get on a regular plane like other Canadians. We do have business class at the front, and those accommodations can be made.

There are countries where prime ministers actually do that, and our cabinet ministers get on the plane all the time. However, this motion is not about getting the Prime Minister off of the Challenger and on to a commercial flight. The world has changed since 9/11, and we are far more conscious of security. That is why I am proud to be standing up and speaking to a motion that takes that into consideration.

However, it behooves us, then, that when there is a government plane to be used for government business and also to transport the Prime Minister and his family for security reasons, that this is what the plane is used for. If the Prime Minister wants his bagmen, whose job it is to travel around the country to make money for the Conservative Party, it does not matter whether they are enjoying a holiday with the Prime Minister; they can join him when he gets to the other side. That is not the purpose of the Challenger and its availability to the Prime Minister. Canadians are paying attention because of that.

Last week, I heard rhetoric that the fundraiser had paid back the fare at commercial value. He paid back two hundred and something dollars for a trip that he took over the Christmas period. I would like to know who could find a commercial flight across this country for just over $200 during a peak period. For those of us who have to shop around for cheap flights, we know that is not possible.

I noted with interest that the Prime Minister was very vocal, almost vitriolic, in his criticisms of the Liberal Party. By the way, I would say that he was justified because there were all kinds of abuses. None of us who are working people in Canada, and taxpayers, can stand for that kind of largesse that gives an individual a sense of entitlement just because constituents have enough faith to make them a member of Parliament. It is that kind of largesse that is concerning Canadians now. The very Prime Minister, who used to be very vocal against that kind of largesse by my colleagues in the far corner, is now finding himself caught in the same thing.

I notice that the rules were changed once the Prime Minister came to office. Now, since the Prime Minister has been leading the government, whoever travels with him only has to repay the amount, and does so at economy rates.

That seems a little strange. I would say that we need to take a look at that. I am sure that travelling on the Challenger is anything but economy class, never mind all the convenience and everything else.

Here is a quote from the Prime Minister on April 25, 2005, taken from the Prince George Citizen:

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.

What has changed? That is the question taxpayers are asking today. I am sure a lot of the people who voted for the government in power right now will be asking themselves the same question. What has changed? We went from one party of entitlement to a party that smacked that party over and over again for its entitlement, and now that it is in government, it feels it is entitled to those same entitlements.

I have heard my colleagues across the way make these obtuse arguments about fliers, like the ten percenters that went into a riding. That, by the way, was cleared by Elections Canada, which said that all the rules were followed because they went out long before the election was called.

By the way, let me remind my colleagues across the way that it is not the opposition that determines the date of the by-election and can therefore start counting backwards; that date is determined by the government. Those ten percenters and those communications went out well ahead of the election announcement by the government side.

What we have right now, and what has brought us to debating this issue, is a fundraiser, a guy who has raised over $3.5 million—and I am sure it was much more than that, but that is the number that is out there—who gets to travel on the Challenger to go to another place where he is speaking, not on government business, and he gets to buy a ticket for just over $200.

There are times when I want to travel with my friends on a plane. I cannot always do that when I am coming here on MP business as a parliamentarian. Sometimes I have to travel on a different plane, and sometimes it is in a different part of the plane. That is right.

Just because someone is friends with the Prime Minister does not entitle them to use a government asset to make partisan gains for a political party. That is what this debate is about today. I cannot wait to hear a substantive argument from my colleagues across the way that could justify such gargantuan largesse and such a sense of entitlement.

Let me repeat, because sometimes it is hard for my colleagues to pay attention, that the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family are taken into consideration right in this motion. This motion is not about the Prime Minister travelling on the Challenger; this motion is about non-government business people, such as fundraisers, travelling on that plane.

The Prime Minister goes to all kinds of events. As an elected leader, that is his right. He gets invited and he goes. What is not the Prime Minister's right is to put his fundraiser on a government plane. I am open to being persuaded, but I do not think anybody could ever persuade me that having a fundraiser on a plane is government business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member might share with me, because she seems to have obviously done a bit a research, how many times over the past eight years individuals other than government officials have actually been on the Challenger. Has she looked at the manifests? Can she identify for me the number of times that a private individual has been on that Challenger?

I doubt she can, so I am going to help her. It is eight times. It is eight times in eight years that a private individual has been on that Challenger and has repaid the equivalent cost to the taxpayer, a policy that was not in place before.

Moreover, the individual that she talks about is a very close friend of the Prime Minister, somebody who has been a friend of the Prime Minister for a long time, somebody who is trusted by the family to take care of the kids when the Prime Minister is on foreign vacations. Moreover, this is an individual who might be in the exact same city as the Prime Minister on a jet that is empty, aside from the Prime Minister.

Is she really suggesting that on those very few occasions, the Prime Minister should be cocooned and this individual should be sent somewhere else and not allowed to be on that plane?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have access to all the manifests, but I would be really delighted—

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

Yes, you do.