Debates of April 1st, 2014

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to have clear rules. When we see breaches like this, I do not think anyone over there would want to rationalize or defend the fact that fundraisers and friends of the Conservative Party are going on these trips with the Prime Minister. I do not think they look forward to answering these questions, so they should embrace fair rules and daylight and sunshine. That is what this motion is about.

I would say to my colleague for Timmins—James Bay that we know certain people are getting on the plane and paying back perhaps $250 for a ticket that I think would cost a lot more. The point is, how do they get on the plane? Who creates the manifest? I think we need to actually have rules on that aspect.

I hope to see, as we might see after this debate, the government bringing forward new rules. I really hope the Conservatives do that, because all we are asking for are some fair rules, some daylight, so that everyday Canadians can see that their Prime Minister has a plane that he needs and is using, but it is only for him and for government officials and not for friends of the Conservative Party.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech, as usual. I have listened all morning to the discussions and questions in the House. We have a very straightforward motion. There is a tendency on the other side of the House, and in the corner with no one in it right now, to try to divert the conversation on the issues before us.

The issue before us is of great concern, of course. For a few years now, we have seen what I would call a very serious tendency by the Conservatives with respect to the kind of scandals we see day after day in Ottawa.

Could my colleague comment on that? We are not dealing with an isolated issue here with these trips for the Prime Minister's friends, but a very serious tendency on the other side.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech this notion that we are starting to see a separation of the political class and citizens, and it starts with things like this.

When I was taking a bus a couple of years ago, I remember a gentleman recognized me and called me by name. I said yes, that was who I was. He said, “You're on the bus”. I replied, “Yes, I am”. He was from Bangladesh, and he said, “You don't understand. In my country, that would never happen”.

I share that anecdote because I want to make sure we stay true to our values and that we do not separate, to the extent that we see in some countries, the people who represent the people. However, that is what we are starting to see, and it creeps in like this. People say to themselves that someone can come with them because they are friends and they are busy people and they need to have friends with them from time to time.

It creeps in, and that is what this motion is about. I would ask my colleagues to think of it in that vein and get on board.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the current motion by my colleague from Timmins—James Bay.

Allow me to read the motion in order to put us back into context. The motion reads as follows:

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.

Last week, on March 25, iPolitics revealed that the Prime Minister approved the use of Challenger jets not only for the travel of members of his family, but also for the travel of his personal friends and Conservative Party fundraisers.

The Prime Minister is supposed to pay back a part of the costs when he uses those planes for non-official functions, but shortly after coming to power, he changed the reimbursement formula. As a result, from that time on, he has been reimbursing only an amount equivalent to an economy class ticket.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of all my colleagues here today, it is completely unacceptable to change the rules of the game to his advantage in that way, especially since his opponents were the targets of criticism in the past for similar practices.

Last week, we learned that the Prime Minister used a private jet, paid for by taxpayers, for the travel of Conservative Party fundraisers and that he was sticking taxpayers with the bill.

A close friend of the Prime Minister, Mark Kihn, brought in more than $3.5 million for two of the Prime Minister's election campaigns. As a reward, Mr. Kihn was entitled to travel in the government's private jet at taxpayers' expense. This is unacceptable.

If the Prime Minister wants to take a plane trip with his friends and Conservative Party fundraisers, he should not be sticking taxpayers with the bill because it is not their bill to pay.

When I see things like this, I cannot help but think about all the budget cuts that this government has made. The Conservatives are literally taking an axe to our social safety net by making cuts to employment insurance, protection for seniors, environmental protection, health care, the fight against homelessness, care for veterans, care for refugees, and postal services. I could go on and on.

I find it particularly unacceptable to see frivolous spending when the government is cutting essential services to the public. We are talking about a government plane that the Conservatives use for non-government purposes, and the taxpayers are paying for it. Taxpayers are struggling more and more to make ends meet, and they are the ones paying for it all.

Can we remember the times when the Conservatives used to fight against this kind of privilege? Well, they are now worse than the Liberals they replaced. Let me quote the Prime Minister before he came to power. He made one such statement in the House of Commons on November 24, 2005:

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.

Well, the Prime Minister made that statement in 2005, before he came to power, and now he is doing exactly the same thing. Can we let this slip by? I think not.

In April 2005, he also said that Mr. Martin really wanted to have a 10-month election campaign to fly around the country on a jet at taxpayers' expense in order to throw enough money all over the country to cover up the stench of corruption. In his view, that type of campaign was not in the best interests of the country.

I think we have enough quotes to show that the current government is not walking the talk. We are seeing a double standard, as the government is saying “do as I say, not as I do”.

Does the House want to know how much the government's junkets in the jet are worth—a jet that, by the way, belongs to taxpayers?

That is the equivalent of old age security benefits for 19 seniors, guaranteed income supplement benefits for 20 seniors, the survivor allowance for 13 seniors or the annual average pension of five retired veterans. That is huge.

I would also be curious to know how much public housing that corresponds to. I would like to know how many homeless people could be brought in off the street with that money and how many employment insurance benefits could be provided to people who need them. How many people are being deprived of their rights because of this needless spending?

In 2005, when the Prime Minister sat in opposition, he made a big fuss about the Liberals, who were taking their backers all over Canada in the prime minister's private planes. He was right; it was appalling and the abuse needed to stop. However, he is doing exactly the same thing now and is refusing to change his ways.

Journalist Elizabeth Thompson, who writes for the electronic news service iPolitics, discovered that the Prime Minister took his backers on a trip between Ottawa and Calgary and asked them to pay $260. However, a similar flight in economy class with Air Canada costs between $600 and $800.

I would sure like to provide such perks to my political pals, but I do not because we are not supposed to. I do not have that kind of power anyway. Things like that should not even happen. We should not even have to talk about them today.

According to the rules governing Parliament, only people working for the Prime Minister's Office or the House of Commons are allowed to travel on the Prime Minister's private airplanes. All other individuals must pay full price for the flight. The Prime Minister and his assistants have tried to convince us that a flight from Ottawa to Calgary costs taxpayers just $260 per person, but the truth is that Challenger airplanes cost taxpayers $11,000 per hour.

Imagine how disappointed honest people must be when the government thumbs its nose at them by spending money frivolously on things that are completely foreign to the lives of ordinary Canadians. These are people who pay their taxes, who donate to charity to help the least fortunate, who often have a hard time making ends meet, who hope that nothing happens to them because they know they might not be entitled to employment insurance now that the program has been reformed, and who know they have to work two extra years before they can retire.

I truly hope that all of these scandals will end once and for all in 2015 when an NDP government comes to power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the remarks my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot made. She talks about important issues frequently in the House, and she speaks very eloquently on behalf of her constituents. I would like to thank her for that.

Like the member for Ottawa Centre so aptly mentioned, the motion states that the plane used by the Prime Minister should be used only for government purposes. That seems pretty straightforward. However, the Conservatives and the Liberals would rather dismiss this motion because they think it is up to them to decide what justifies using the government plane.

In the past, the Prime Minister criticized the Liberals for using the plane to transport contributors, which he said was inappropriate. Now he seems to have changed his mind. My question for my colleague is simple.

Why did the Prime Minister change his mind, and does he want to use the plane for whatever purpose he desires?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Why did the Prime Minister suddenly change his mind, and why did he use the plane for personal and partisan reasons? I think that is utterly shameful and an abuse of power, pure and simple.

This points to a double standard. The government's actions are totally inconsistent with the values it espoused when it was the official opposition, with what it fought for tooth and nail and with its condemnation of the former government. All I can say is that this government is no better than its predecessors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the NDP members' speeches today, and it seems as if they are trying to blur the lines. They should know that the use of government aircraft is strictly governed by Treasury Board guidelines. They are trying to pretend that there are no guidelines. If we look around the world at our colleagues in the G7, their countries all have strict rules that when their prime ministers or the leaders of their countries are travelling, it is very important to keep those leaders safe.

The truth of the matter is that the New Democrats put forward the motion today to muddy the lines. This is about using government resources properly. They know that their leader is being asked to appear in front of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to justify opening partisan offices around this country in areas where they do not even have any MPs. That is very clear.

I want the member to stand and tell Canadians the truth. What is their hidden agenda? What is the NDP doing using House resources to open partisan offices around the country?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to distract us from the main subject because it is feeling the heat.

The NDP plays by the rules. We opened offices to better serve the people, and we did so in accordance with House rules and procedures. We have nothing to apologize for. They need to stop changing the subject and start talking about real issues in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces operate flight services for representatives of the government on government business. The flight service operates throughout the year, seven days a week, 24 hours day.

The government ensures that taxpayers' dollars are always respected by strictly adhering to the Treasury Board of Canada's guidelines and policy. The very fact that we are discussing the use of these aircraft today is a testament to the exceptional services offered by our men and women in uniform.

It seems to me that we need to ground today's debate in a better understanding of the vital role military aircraft, aircrews, and air support play in enabling our armed forces to protect Canada's interests and values at home and abroad.

Readiness can be defined as the preparedness and flexibility needed to deploy in response to government direction, no matter the type, location, or severity of threats. This government has recognized the vital importance of readiness to succeed in ensuring Canada's security, in acting as a solid ally in defending North America, and in doing our fair share internationally, as stated in the Canada first defence strategy.

The Canadian Armed Forces are agile. They are capable of taking on multiple missions at a time. When they need to respond to a natural disaster at home or abroad, they deploy at a moment's notice. When they need to transport representatives of the government on government business, they answer the call.

Our readiness and our flexibility have been proven time and time again. That is why I would like to take a few moments to remind the men and women of this House of some of the security challenges our men and women in uniform have successfully taken on in recent years. They were challenges such as the Afghanistan mission, which saw over 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed over a 13-year period to help Afghans transition to a more democratic, secure, and prosperous future. There was Operation Mobile in Libya, which helped protect innocent civilians from the forces of the Gaddafi regime and helped move that country towards democracy. There were also hundreds of search and rescue missions mounted in co-operation with other organizations and levels of government, operations that have saved, on average, 1,200 Canadians lives every single year.

Rapid air response, and in particular transport capabilities such as those provided by the Airbus CC-150 Polaris, constitute a key component of readiness for these operations. In today's world, complex security challenges can arise quickly and can escalate rapidly in any part of the globe, from the high Arctic to the desert plains of the Middle East.

Not only are military aircraft usually the first responders when crises arise, ensuring rapid and effective delivery of emergency assistance, they are also key to the sustainability of any mission, because they provide supplies, troops, and medical evacuation.

In Afghanistan, for example, the Polaris fleet formed part of the air bridge between Canada and Afghanistan. It transported thousands of passengers and over seven million pounds of cargo during Operation Apollo alone.

When forest fires broke out in Kelowna, B.C., in 2003, the Polaris fleet airlifted around 1,500 troops to the area to battle the flames. When a devastating earthquake hit Pakistan in 2005, Polaris aircraft carried members of the Canadian Armed Forces to that country to provide emergency assistance. Clearly, the Polaris formed a crucial component of operational readiness in all those cases.

Let us take a more recent example, one that will be fresh in the minds of all present here today: Typhoon Haiyan. On November 8, 2013, it crippled the Philippines, setting off landslides, taking out power and ground transportation, and killing over 6,000 people.

The Canadian Armed Forces' response to this disaster was rapid and effective. It enabled the purification of around 500,000 litres of water, the medical treatment of around 6,500 patients, the delivery of over 230,000 pounds of food, and the clearing of over 130 kilometres of roads.

This response relied on capabilities like those of the Polaris, which was used to transport members and equipment from Canada's disaster assistance response team to the Philippines.

This government recognizes the vital importance of aircraft like the Polaris to operational readiness and success. That is why we continue to invest in the maintenance of these aircraft, the training and the well-being of their crews and support personnel, and upgrades such as the recent conversion of two Polaris aircraft to strategic air-to-air refuellers for Canada's CF-18 fighter aircraft. That is why we continue to ensure that these assets are available and ready for rapid deployment on Canadian Armed Forces operations around the world.

The proof is in the pudding: the proven ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to respond effectively whenever it has been called upon to do so in recent years.

While it is important for us to discuss the occasional use of the Polaris to ensure the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family, I would ask the men and women of the House to put this debate into its larger context and remember that the Canadian Armed Forces stands ready to serve all Canadians whenever and wherever it is called upon to do so.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member did quite an amazing job skating around the issue. Let us make one thing clear: everyone assembled here today respects and supports the armed forces. To say that this problem should be set aside because it plays down the effective functioning and abilities of the armed forces is merely an attempt to divert the debate.

I will try another approach with my hon. colleague. Does it seem normal to him, yes or no, that resources that belong to such a respectable organization—yes, these are resources that must sometimes provide a framework for the Prime Minister's activities to ensure that they are safe—resources that we value, respect and regard as very important, could suddenly be used as a form of discounted public transportation for the Prime Minister's buddies? That is why this makes absolutely no sense.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP understands 100% that the use of government aircraft is strictly governed by Treasury Board guidelines. It has always been like that. The guidelines are very clear.

It is shameful that the NDP has brought this motion forward today. I was in the House when the member for Timmins—James Bay brought the motion forward. I saw those members laughing and heard them making fun of the issue of security for the Prime Minister of this country—

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Is the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster rising on a point of order?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. These are entirely inappropriate comments coming from the parliamentary secretary. He should know better. He should be sticking to the subject of debate, which is the use of government aircraft.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat myself. I was sitting here. I will read the motion to the House:

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.

Many times the NDP have brought up ridiculous points of order that have nothing to do with today's motion. I stand here defending the system that we have put in place, the strict guidelines of Treasury Board, and the men and women who fly these planes and put their lives on the line by providing security for our government leaders and the Prime Minister of this country.

The NDP is trying to blur the lines because those members know that their leader is going to be in front of PROC defending their inappropriate use of government resources to open up partisan offices across this country without any rational government business. The Liberals have brought forward good points in an attempt to get members who are politically motivated to fill these positions. That is what this is about. I am proud—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words from members on the other side about respecting the Canadian Armed Forces, but they certainly do not understand them.

It was the Liberal Party that plunged us into the decade of darkness, and I remember those years very well. We did not have the equipment we needed, the boots, the uniforms. It is thanks to this government that the Canadian Armed Forces has the major equipment pieces it needs. This government rebuilt the respect and the pride and the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces around the world.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the utility of the Polaris and its role in security and domestic operations, its international roles, and its impact on the morale of people around the world. When I speak of its impact on the morale of people around the world I am referring to people in the Philippines who saw this aircraft land in their airport with Canada written on its side.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have the floor right now, I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke Centre for all the good work he has done recently in Ukraine, and he is aware of this. He has been travelling back and forth on government planes, and he has been secured by military officials because that is his role. That is because he is dedicated to holding up the ideals of this country, just like the men and women who put on that uniform every single day. He talks about the Polaris and what we have done. This is something Canadians should be proud of: Canadian men and women who go out into the world to make a difference.

I want to say that this member has himself worn that uniform. He understands the values and the commitments, unlike the New Democrats over here who are using this motion for partisanship and gains against the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend the leaders of our government. I want to thank the member for his commitment and his action to hold Canadian values up in the world, which we can all be very proud of.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to be able to rise today and participate in the debate on the use of government aircraft and, in particular, on Canada's Royal Canadian Air Force. There is not a day that goes by when its members are not standing on guard for us, both here and around the world. Their job is to ensure Canadians are safe and to make a meaningful contribution abroad and on behalf of Canada, and they so proudly do that.

As part of this important contribution, the Department of National Defence operates flight services for representatives of the government on government business in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada's guidelines and its policy. This flight service operates throughout the year, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. As with all its activities, National Defence strives to use resources in the most economical, efficient, and cost-effective manner when it comes to the use of the aircraft. It is appropriate, however, to put this debate into context.

The efforts of our men and women in uniform begin right here at home, and their top priority is the security of Canada and of all Canadians. Additionally, another key role of the Armed Forces is supporting civilian authorities during a crisis such as a national disaster, which is one of its additional core missions. The devastating floods that hit Alberta in June 2013, for example, are still fresh in our memories. That flash flooding was extremely dangerous, put the lives of Canadians at risk, forced road closures, damaged the infrastructure, and isolated entire communities. When the Province of Alberta asked the Canadian Armed Forces for assistance, our military responded by deploying approximately 2,300 personnel to save lives, reduce any human suffering, and mitigate property damage. Our men and women in uniform made Albertans and all of Canada proud.

Search and rescue aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force are generally the first military assets involved in the assistance effort. They provide evacuation and aeromedical support to people in need. The Royal Canadian Air Force participated in Alberta with six Griffon helicopters as well as two CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and one Hercules aircraft, as well as the Aurora. About 100 personnel from the RCAF were part of these operations. One of the most amazing efforts was in the Kananaskis area west of Calgary, where two Griffon helicopters and one Cormorant evacuated more than 200 people from hotels impacted by the floods.

These kinds of rescues are remarkable, and they also remind us that the Canadian Armed Forces makes search and rescue a priority every day across this country. An incredible search and rescue operation happened just this past December when a fire broke out at a student residence in Kingston and a crane worker was stranded about 100 metres above the blaze. The Kingston fire department and police requested search and rescue assistance to save the man, and a CH-146 Griffon was launched from Trenton, complete with a search and rescue crew. In a brave and very delicate operation, as I am sure members can imagine, the search and rescue technician and crew helped hoist the crane worker into the helicopter and quickly airlifted him to a hospital where he was treated for burns. That rescue clearly was a great success, and yet another of those examples of how the Canadian Armed Forces uses military aircraft to keep Canadians safe each and every day.

Of course, our military has a long history of contributing to peace and stability abroad, and that is why deploying in response to crises around the world is one of the six core missions of our Armed Forces and why our military maintains contingency plans for rapid deployment to the scene of a disaster overseas. A recent example, which has already been cited, is of the Armed Forces' incredible work when a devastating typhoon hit the Philippines in November 2013. Typhoon Haiyan was one of the strongest storms of its kind ever—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely no relevance to the matter that is before the House. The member cannot just stand and start talking about a subject that has no relationship to what is clearly the motion today, that, in the opinion of the House, government planes should only be used for government purposes.

I am not sure why the Conservatives object to that, but I would hope, Mr. Speaker, you would ensure that the member actually speaks with some relevance to what is before the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This member is correct. There is a rule of relevance in this chamber.

At the same time, members are given latitude in order to bring relevant facts and context to bear on that.

I would ask the hon. member who is speaking, as well as others, to keep this in mind and to ensure that what they say before the House is relevant to the motion before the House.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize the member is new in his role, but I am speaking on a relevant topic, in that this is about our Canadian Armed Forces, our Royal Canadian Air Force, and their value to Canada, and I appreciate not being interrupted.

—and as that hurricane slammed into the Philippines, many people lost their lives and sustained life-threatening injuries; millions of people needed humanitarian support; and power and communications were cut in several provinces across the country. I think we all watched, astounded at the impact that storm had on the Philippines.

As part of the Government of Canada response, the Canadian Armed Forces provided just that. At the height, the Canadian response was 319 military personnel, with diverse specialities, who were part of the operation. Their work included purifying nearly--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The member is rising on the same point of order?

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.