Debates of April 1st, 2014

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

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

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 refueling 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.

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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

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?

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

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

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

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?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

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.

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

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.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

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.

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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Where do we begin, Mr. Speaker? Is it a breach of trust? Is the member kidding me?

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

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 theParliamentary 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?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

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.

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

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?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

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?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

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.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

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

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?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Churchill has used the Prime Minister's name rather than his position. Would she not repeat that, please.