Debates of April 1st, 2014

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is just that it is a name that I repeat often, and Canadians repeat often.

Since I have the opportunity, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

When it comes to first nations, for the last number of weeks I have had a chance to travel on the winter ice roads, connecting with some of the most marginalized communities in our country. At the doorsteps, I often hear people ask why it is that the Prime Minister is flying around with his jet and cutting favours for his friends. I am hearing this at a time when they have an underfunding of education, or not enough housing, or where there is no investment from the federal government in making sure that first nation communities have running water and proper sewer services.

Where is the federal government when it comes to making investments to an all-weather road system, which the Province of Manitoba is investing in? The federal government shrugs its shoulders and says it has nothing to do with improving the lives of first nation people.

People on the ground, first nations people, indigenous people, and all Canadians, see a major disconnect. They see the ways in which the Prime Minister and his government are cutting favours for their friends. They are spending taxpayers' money to make their friends happy, all the while cutting essential services for Canadians.

We know that the Conservatives spent $118,090 on the flights in question. That is equal to old age security for 19 seniors, a GIS allowance for 20 seniors, survivor allowance for 16 seniors, or an average annual pension for five retired veterans.

The cost of flying around the country and around the world, of flying around friends like Mr. Mark Kihn, the fundraising project manager for the Conservative Party of Canada, and flying around friends and donors of the Conservative Party, unfortunately, equals the same cost that would make people's lives livable.

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

Words like “hypocrisy” come to mind when we hear about these kinds of expenditures. We have to look no further than a record of statements, and there are many, where the same members, including the Prime Minister of the government, used to cry foul about these kinds of expenditures that they are now engaging in.

I want to read a quote from the former leader of the official opposition, who is now the Prime Minister. He said:

What Mr. Martin wants now is to have a 10-month election (campaign) where he can fly around the country on a government jet at taxpayers' expense, and he can throw enough money all over the country to cover up the stench of corruption.

The “stench of corruption” are strong words. They are words that are entirely applicable to the kind of behaviour we are seeing from the government today.

The Prime Minister also said, in 2004:

It's not a question that I'm hanging back. It's a question that I don't have a Challenger jet paid for by the taxpayers to fly myself and my people around the country....

Well, the Prime Minister now does have a Challenger jet that he can fly himself and his people around the country. What is he going to do about it?

We heard from the Minister of Employment and Social Development, who many years ago, as a member of Parliament in the opposition, said:

Mr. Speaker, imagine taking a Challenger jet across the country at a cost of $55,000 for an 800 word speech. I think that works out to about $72 a word.

I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Social Development is calculating the per-word dollar count that his government is racking up at taxpayers' expense.

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

I am proud of the position that we in the NDP are taking to shine a light on the waste, the culture of entitlement, and the hypocrisy that we have seen from the government. We are here to speak out on the fact that this is about priorities. The government is here to govern in the best interests of the Canadian people.

Our message is that if the government is not willing to do that, then it is time to step aside and let us govern with the best interests of Canadians at heart.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I would also like to thank her for reminding us that a good, accountable government prioritizes the right things by investing in and supporting initiatives of vital importance to Canada. This government abandoned one such world-class initiative, the Experimental Lakes Area, a one-of-a-kind science program that helped us save waterways and learn about the environmental consequences of various elements.

Can she talk about how a good, accountable government would make wise choices to save projects and initiatives such as the Experimental Lakes Area or to invest in new co-ops?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good question.

It is clear that we have lost several programs because of this government's budget cuts. This proves how messed up its priorities are. The Experimental Lakes Area is an excellent example. In my home province, Manitoba, hundreds of Manitobans and Canadians opposed cutting that program.

We all know that the government chose to protect oil companies and their interests rather than ensure that we had a way to do environmental protection research, which was the purpose of the Experimental Lakes Area.

Every day, every week in the House, the government puts corporate interests, such as big oil, and friends who fund its electoral interests ahead of the well-being of Canadians.

Our motion today asks the government to put an end to that culture of hypocrisy and act in Canadians' best interests by making investments on the ground to ensure their well-being.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny to see the party that will be relegated to the opposition benches for quite some time remain silent and let us carry the full weight of the debate on this important issue.

I thank the hon. member for Churchill for her speech, which referred to the Prime Minister.

I would like to remind the House of another example of this government's twisted logic and contradictions: the series of cheques made out to Senator Duffy. At the time, the Prime Minister staunchly defended his chief of staff, saying that he had his full confidence, only to repudiate him later.

Would my hon. colleague from Churchill like to draw a parallel between the current debate and the bad faith shown by this government in defending the indefensible?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely a trend here. Time after time the government, whether it is Prime Minister or senior ministers, has prioritized the interests of friends, friends like Mr. Duffy and others in the other House, at the expense of Canadians.

Where are the champions of accountability and transparency that were heralded by the Reform Party? Where are their friends, like Mr. Kihn who was involved with the National Citizen's Coalition, who fought for increased transparency?

Those days are gone. Canadians have gotten a whiff of that stench of corruption that has emerged with the government, and they want change. They deserve better.

We are on Canadians' side in putting forward this motion and calling for real accountability on behalf of Canadians' real interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the scandal involving just Senator Duffy, but I also could have included Senator Wallin. We have lost count of this government's improprieties.

At some point, there are limits to defending one thing one minute and then defending the opposite the next. Talk about a contradiction. The government will have earned its fate. To continue along the same lines as my colleague, I really enjoy being in my riding, and I am sometimes embarrassed and surprised to hear some of the comments from my constituents regarding the Prime Minister and his government. People sometimes even go a little too far in their choice of words to describe the actions of the Prime Minister, who is abusing his majority. Personally, I always accept the will of the people.

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

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

In an article published in iPolitics, journalist Elizabeth Thompson demonstrated the exact opposite. She had to resort to the Access to Information Act to prove that one of the Prime Minister's close family friends was able to use the Prime Minister's Challenger at rock-bottom prices. There is no way the competition can match those prices because public money is what keeps them so low.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety was thoroughly incapable of proving that she was talking about real issues. She was completely off-track with her comments about the Prime Minister's security. She said that it is important to deal with terrorist threats and so on. I would invite her to meet with the Minister of Industry as quickly as possible, because he had this to say on October 1, 2001:

There is something else the government can do. If the government wants to show confidence in the commercial airline industry, here is a suggestion. Will the Prime Minister park his Challenger jet and fly commercial skies as other Canadians do as a sign of faith that security works?

That comment is over a decade old. Perhaps the Minister of Industry was lacking in judgment at the time. That said, the parliamentary secretary could always meet with him to talk about it. However, he told the House that it is absolutely impossible, for security reasons, for the Prime Minister to fly on commercial airlines. That is perfectly understandable.

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

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

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

Let me be clear. Taken in isolation, what we are debating right now in the House is a mistake that we could consider excusing if the Conservatives would acknowledge their mistakes or their lack of judgment. However, when we look at the big picture, we can point to the in and out scandal of the 2006 election; the robocalls to mislead voters and send them to polling stations that did not exist; all the Senate scandals; not to mention the problems of the Minister of International Cooperation, who had a great deal of difficulty deciding where to put his lunch box and sleeping bag on certain outings to the Quebec cottages of prominent Canadians; and of course we could mention the former minister of international cooperation, Bev Oda, who threw tantrums in order to be able to smoke in her room and treated herself to $16 glasses of orange juice.

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

As the official opposition, we are pointing out serious problems that, when taken as a whole, are indicative of a well-established and deeply rooted culture. After nine years, this government has amply demonstrated the extent to which it has used public resources for personal gain. That is enough. We will form the next government in 2015 because Canadians really deserve better.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend across the way that I was not reading my iPad or my newspaper when he was speaking. I was really trying to follow him, but he took such a pretzel-like turn in his speech that it was really hard to follow everything he said.

Overall, what we are trying to get at here is the use of the Challenger jet for travel by the Prime Minister and ministers. All members in the House are aware that this government has reduced ministerial travel by over 75% since we took office, and that is a good news story for taxpayers.

How can my friend across the way justify his party's use of taxpayer dollars to fund satellite offices in areas of this country where that party does not even have members of Parliament? Could he address that question?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend opposite for his question. I especially want to thank him for paying attention to my speech, unlike some of his colleagues who still have their eyes glued to their screens.

That said, I have been active in politics for nine years, and I believe that, as a member of Parliament, I represent my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou first and foremost, but that I also represent all Canadians. This May 2 will mark three years since the orange wave took over and we began our terms. There were 4.5 million Canadians across the country who put their hopes in us.

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

I remind my colleague that I think it is useful to meet with the groups who come to make representations on the Hill, but I do not think that that is the most important part of my job. The most important part of my job is meeting people directly, knocking on doors and going to see them wherever they are, all across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the previous question from the Conservative side.

I was looking at the advertisement for a full-time position put out by the NDP. The advertisement was paid for with House funds. The NDP is looking for somebody with a number of qualifications, including experience in election campaigns.

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

Party funds are available to pay for people in the NDP, for example, who want to resurrect the NDP in Saskatchewan.

Does the member represent all Canadians, or does he represent the people in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not agree with my colleague's statement that MPs do not represent all Canadians. After all, we are all gathered here in the House to truly represent the entire population. We are here to serve Canadians.

I do not understand why both the Conservatives and the Liberals are so determined to try to draw attention away from a debate that is really very important. The crux of the problem is that government resources that have been put at the Prime Minister's disposal are being misused in order to benefit a group of close friends.

I am reminded of the scandal involving Senator Duffy, not to mention certain Liberal senators. It started out as a seemingly minor thing, but then it snowballed into a major issue. This is only the beginning of the debate on what will no doubt become a major issue in the public arena. We will therefore continue to stand behind our arguments in this regard.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak against the motion put forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

As well, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

Our government has the utmost respect for the men and women who serve as members of the police in Canada. As such, we take their advice with regard to safety and security very seriously and with due consideration. Our government acknowledges the professionalism and expertise of the members of the RCMP, who are responsible for decisions relating to the safety of the Prime Minister. This is why the deployment of RCMP assets is based upon operational considerations.

While the opposition is busy filling its time with motions such as this one, which it brings forward only to play partisan games, our government is actually delivering results for Canadians and their families. Instead of putting forward ideas to grow our economy, create jobs, balance the budget, and reduce taxes, we are debating a motion that reeks of partisanship.

When I return to my riding this weekend, I do not think that the constituents of Brandon—Souris will be pleased to know we were debating what plane the Prime Minister should be on. The people of Brandon—Souris want all members of this House to work on passing legislation approving funding that would build new roads and bridges, get our grain moving, and open new markets for our products.

It is unfortunate, with everything we could be debating today, that the member for Timmins—James Bay has decided to put partisanship ahead of getting results for Canadians.

I would also like to use my time to speak about what our government is doing to stand up for law-abiding citizens.

While the opposition is playing games, we are concentrating our efforts to ensure Canadians have safe communities. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we are committed to combating the scourge of human trafficking. We have kept our promise to Canadians to work to make communities safer places for Canadians to live, work, and raise their families. Like many Canadians, the Prime Minister looks to the judgment of the RCMP in matters of security.

This government wants to create an atmosphere for Canadians to prosper as individuals and groups. We want our children to be safe online. To this end, we have recently introduced the protecting Canadians from online crime act, to protect children and youth from cyberbullying.

As the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness recently said:

Too many families across this country have experienced the devastating effects of cyberbullying. Our government will not stand by and watch the online harassment of our children. Thanks to this national campaign, we are informing parents and youth about cyberbullying and how it can amount to criminal activity.

This is what Canadians care about. They want their children to use the Internet responsibly, and they want others to be held responsible for their actions online.

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

People want to be able to live their day-to-day lives without having to worry about dangerous and violent criminals working in the shadows of their streets and communities.

In a country like Canada, the safety of the individual should be a given. The government has no higher calling than ensuring the safety of its citizens.

The Prime Minister does not stop being Prime Minister of Canada when he goes home in the evening. What I am explaining is that the leader of a developed nation should not be a target of ill-willed individuals. It is shocking that the opposition thinks so little of Canada's international reputation that it would, for petty partisan reasons, seek to put the security of the Prime Minister at risk. It concerns me that the NDP is not aware of the very real threats in our world. We should not live in fear, but we should certainly practise prudence.

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

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

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

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following question period yesterday, I referenced in a point of order the dates Monday, March 17, and Tuesday, March 18. The record should indicate that the dates were in fact Monday, March 24, and Tuesday, March 25, respectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for his speech, even though he chose to debate our motion in a suprisingly roundabout way. In fact, I am wondering if he even read the motion or whether he focused only on the speech he was told to give.

I would like to reread the motion for the House's benefit:

That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family.

Can my colleague explain what is so partisan about this motion, which he is so awkwardly speaking out against?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

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

If the opposition has time to worry about the jet that the Prime Minister may take in situations like this, I think it has its priorities wrong, which should be making sure that we are fulfilling the needs of families across this country and the voters who elected us all to the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, when there is a delegation representing Canada, does my hon. colleague think that the government should be excluding opposition members of Parliament? Should there not be some representation from different viewpoints in the country when a Canadian delegation goes to an international event? Is that not a misuse of taxpayers' dollars, because it makes the delegation somewhat partisan?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear why the delegation was travelling in regard to the recent situation in Ukraine. The opposition parties in the House were not clear where they should come down in regard to whose side they were on and the hon. member's leader who was not sure about the seriousness of the situation. So there was a decision made to move forward with the delegation as quickly as we could. I commend the Prime Minister for taking a leadership role among the whole G7 in regard to activity in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion by the hon. member of the opposition.

I think it is important to be clear on what this motion is actually proposing. The motion is not attempting to prevent the Prime Minister from using the Challenger aircraft for security reasons, although some have suggested that it is. The opposition seems to recognize the security needs established by the RCMP for him to travel in this manner. The motion is also not about the fact that the NDP is using House resources to open a political office in Saskatchewan, a point that has often been raised in this discussion today. What the motion proposes to do is to restrict who can travel on the Challenger with the Prime Minister.

I did some research on the use of government aircraft like the Challenger. Our government has reduced the cost of ministerial travel on government aircraft by nearly 75% compared to when the Liberals held office.

From a Treasury Board perspective, I can remind this House that in budget 2009, we announced a spending freeze by all departments on travel, hospitality, and conference expenditures. Then, in 2010, we froze these expenditures at 2008-09 levels for two additional years. In 2011, we announced a new directive on the management of expenditures on travel, hospitality, and conferences to replace the existing hospitality policy. Each year, departments have to publish their total annual expenditures for travel, hospitality, and conferences, including an explanation of the main variances from the previous year's expenditures.

In economic action plan 2012, we committed to modernizing and reducing the back office, and identified ways of reducing travel expenses by using online tools, such tele-conferencing, video-conferencing, and virtual presence.

In economic action plan 2013, we implemented measures to cut departmental travel spending by over $42 million, or about 5%.

In all, between 2008-09, the base year for the travel cap, and 2011-12, government-wide travel expenditures went down by over $240 million. Our government has taken considerable action to reduce travel expenses in the government. These efforts have been part of our government's overall effort to save taxpayers' money.

However, getting back to the opposition motion, the motion is not intended to save taxpayers' money, as few opposition motions ever are. The opposition is attempting to suggest who can and cannot be onboard a Challenger flight with the Prime Minister. Let us think about that for a moment.

Canada is an incredibly diverse and unique country. It is also vast and large. As every member of the House knows, air travel is a fundamental part of the work that we all do. As much as we all travel, for the Prime Minister, travel is significantly more extensive.

Given the huge amount of time we all spend in the air, many of us try to use that time as productively as possible. I know that recently I read a tweet from the member for Calgary Centre-North who uses her air travel time productively to read her departmental briefing binders.

For some of us, air travel may also be a time to meet with Canadians, fellow members of Parliament, or other members from different levels of government to discuss items of mutual concern. Recently I enjoyed a flight with a local first nations leader.

The point is that the huge amount of time we spend in the air can be very productive in our work as members of Parliament. I would submit that it would be no different for the Prime Minister. To arbitrarily attempt to restrict who can and cannot sit onboard with our Prime Minister, in essence, would deny the leader of our country the same opportunity that we as MPs enjoy.

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

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

Our Prime Minister was elected to lead our great country. Canada today is standing tall and is the envy of many around the world. I will leave out the many talking points on where Canada leads in so many different and important areas. However, I submit it is the role of our Prime Minister, and not the opposition, to decide who is on board to make the most productive use of “wheels up” time. Should the opposition ever form government, it would be free to set policy for aircraft use by the Prime Minister. If, as government, it would like to delegate that authority, the opposition would be welcome to do that. However, to date, I have certainly not observed any examples of the opposition delegating any authority to the third party on who visits Stornoway or not.

Canadians have made it clear that it is our Prime Minister and not the opposition who makes these decisions, and I ask all members of this House to oppose the motion for the reasons that I have given.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite. We are well aware that the Prime Minister has to travel to various locations. However, we need to put this into perspective.

Under the regulations in effect in Parliament, only staff of the Prime Minister's Office or people who work in the House of Commons have the right to be on board the Prime Minister's private planes. Anyone else has to pay the full price of the flight. We learned that people who travelled with the Prime Minister were required to pay only $260, when we know that a similar economy class flight with Air Canada costs between $600 and $800.

What is the reason for this price difference, and why were these party donors on a flight paid for by taxpayers?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the member's own party's motion.

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

Unlike the Liberals, this Prime Minister set the policy that if people are on board who are not there for government business, for security or whatnot, they should pay their fair share. If that member has an issue with that policy, then the New Democrats should table a motion to address that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, when there is a delegation representing Canada, I wonder if it is also a policy of the current government to exclude opposition MPs whenever a convenient rhetorical argument can be found for doing so. I ask the same question of this member as I asked of the previous member, and I hope he can give a better answer.

When the government prevents opposition MPs from joining a delegation representing Canada that includes government MPs, is it not using taxpayer dollars for a somewhat partisan purpose?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiment, but let us focus on what the question is at hand. When we have an election and someone is named prime minister, that person represents the Government of Canada and whoever decides to go on an official Government of Canada delegation is decided on by that person and his or her staff. If the member wants to join an interparliamentary group and travel as a parliamentary delegation, he can join those groups and he can advocate for those budgets that come to the House to make sure he can participate in them. However, who goes on trips and represents the Government of Canada is exclusively the Government of Canada's decision.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliment and I will certainly try my best to answer the question in the limited time.

To be frank, the motion that the opposition parties have put forward do not represent some sort of appeal to protect the taxpayer. In fact, every time we bring forward motions and budgets that do exactly that, they vote against them.

It is important that the Prime Minister be able to use that air travel time as productively as possible, the same as we do. It was this Prime Minister who took the leadership that was absent from the Liberals and made it so that not only are there reductions of 75% to Challenger use, he also put in place a policy to make sure that taxpayers are fairly compensated.

Again, if they want to bring up those facts, then they should actually put forward a motion that speaks to it and not remain silent.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

That, in the opinion of the House, government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes and should not be used to transport anyone other than those associated with such purposes or those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family.

It is not about security of the Prime Minister or the need for him to have security. It is not about whether the Prime Minister should have a plane. It is not even about whether his family should be on the plane with him, and it is not about people having access to the plane to do government business, so let us clear that all up because some people have been wandering off and making comments as though we had challenged that premise.

The facts are those. The motion I read in is what the discussion is about, or should be about. Sadly, it has gone off in other directions. That is the choice of members, but I just want to bring it back for Canadians because this is about trying to bring back accountability to this place and to government.

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

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

The government seems to be arguing that because some money is paid back, it is okay for friends of the Prime Minister to jump on board with him and fly around the country for social events. It is not okay, and why is that?

I have noticed in the last number of years, and we have talked about this government and previous governments, that there has become quite a void between the political class, which is creeping, and everyday people. That is what this is about. It is about trying to bring back some sensibility of what these entitlements are for. They are there for the Prime Minister to do his business, not to have his friend from Calgary, whom I am sure is a fine friend, but why is he on the plane with the Prime Minister to go to social events?

A constituent of mine or of any member of the House cannot call the Prime Minister and say that they have a friend who wants to go on a flight with the Prime Minister, and they know he is going from Calgary to wherever and can the friend jump on board. They cannot do that. Why? Because they do not have access.

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

I suspect that many people would follow up and say that they cannot get on board with the Prime Minister, or friends of theirs cannot, so why is that okay?

The Conservative government has started to rationalize its behaviour in a way that is distancing itself from everyday Canadians and in fact from the accountability program that it came in on.

I was on the committee for Bill C-2, the Accountability Act. I remember well the Conservatives saying that we had to change the behaviour of government and that government should no longer act in an entitled way. They brought in some measures that our party supported. Some of them have not been realized, and that is for another speech, but the premise was that we needed to see more accountability.

It was also really about ethics and about this seeming distance between citizens and the political class. There was this notion that if someone knew someone in the PMO or in government, they could get access, they could have favours done, and they could get jobs and appointments to agencies, boards, commissions, or the Senate. It was getting out of hand, and we agreed with the government in 2006 when it brought in the Accountability Act. We agreed with the spirit of it.

However, what we have seen in the last while—and there is quite a list—is that there is a behaviour that tends to creep into governments after they have been in power for a while. At that point we see the rationalization that certain senators had to be appointed “just because”. We have heard it many times. However, the government did not have to appoint those senators. It could have appointed other senators, but it chose not to. It could have appointed people who did not have connections directly to the Conservative Party to agencies, boards, and commissions, but it did not.

The premise was that the government had to put those people in because they would help with its agenda and those people would help the government get there. That is where we have seen this kind of rationalization creep in and take hold, to the point where many people I know in the Conservative Party are very alienated right now. They thought that the Conservative government of the day and its predecessor parties were about bringing accountability to Ottawa and bringing an end to these entitlements at the highest level.

It is really about that. It is bringing us back to that discussion. In the case of planes, should those planes be used only for government business? That is all we are talking about here. It is not about anything else.

It is also about the spirit of what the Conservative government was talking about way back in 2006, when it came into power. Mr. Speaker, you received that mandate as an MP with the party ticket that you ran on. You did it for what you thought were the best reasons to be involved in public service—to represent people—and you were lauded for it. Many people would say that you were elected on that basis.

We are trying to bring people back to that conversation. We are trying to say that when it comes to government services, they are there for the people.

I will make reference to my mother again. When she ran for office—and she passed this on to me—she always said that running for office is like a job interview. We go door to door and we put our resumés forward to ask if people would hire us to represent them. That is what elections are about. In between elections, we work on their behalf.

I sense that we are starting to see that idea slip a bit around here. I sense that people are starting to say that they deserve this car or that entitlement. What happens is the people who are hurting right now, such as seniors and veterans, wonder who is representing them.

At the end of the day, this motion is not just about planes: it is about entitlement, and it is about bringing all of us back to ask what we are here for. These public services, planes in this case, are purchased by taxpayers, by the citizens. Who are those services there for? Who has access to them? This simple, straightforward motion is just to clarify that question.

For those who disagree with the motion, I would ask them how they will rationalize it to their constituents and tell them that it somehow is not fair. There is nothing wrong with voting for this motion. It will not affect you. In fact, people might laud you for getting behind a motion that might bring you back to why you got involved in politics in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague really placed this issue where it needs to be. This morning we have seen all manner of banter and side-talk, but the issue is on the fair use of resources. It is not about a witch hunt.

We were told by the first Conservative speaker that government resources are to be used for government business and that there are strict rules in place. Also, we know the Prime Minister needs to be able to use the Challenger because of security. Our motion certainly recognizes that. Those points are bedrock in terms of life in the 21st century for a world leader.

The question arises when the Prime Minister flies to Sarasota, Florida, and needs the Challenger jet. That is okay. Then we can expand that, and he flies down to New York to watch a baseball game. That is okay, but why are party fundraisers travelling on that jet and getting extraordinarily low fees in terms of their payback?

I would ask my hon. colleague if he wonders how these flight manifests are set up. How is it that the Conservatives tell us there are clear rules in place, yet people who do the fundraising work of the party are able to fly on flights that are supposed to be clearly regulated?