Debates of April 1st, 2014

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. minister of state for her intervention. Members know that there are rules with respect to relevance to the question before the House. I know there have been points raised on this matter earlier in the day during this debate. I recognize that the member is about halfway into his time and I am sure that he will be presenting arguments that bring his commentary around to the question that is before the House.

It is always instructive to all hon. members to be aware that while they have great liberty to provide arguments around the question before us, we encourage them to make comments relevant, either in the early part of their remarks or certainly toward the end of their remarks so that it will be understood how their particular arguments all connect together.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I did link the topic of ethics. I also talked about transparency and accountability. I am going to finish with priorities, in terms of where we should be spending the money that is being wasted by the government.

Hopefully the member is paying attention to this intervention and does make the link to my points. I spent a lot of time in preparing my comments and I hope members do take note.

As I was saying, this does give an advantage to wealthy candidates. They can contribute up to $5,000 to their own campaign and $25,000 to their own leadership campaign. It exempts fundraising calls made during elections from counting as electoral expenses.

The NDP has fundamental concerns with the bill. We join with journalists, academics, and other Canadians speaking up for democracy, who are now saying that if the bill is not amended, we should kill it.

When it comes to improving our democracy, Canadians cannot rely on the Conservative Party. Its record is one scandal after another. Once again, Conservatives cannot be trusted.

What should we be talking about? What should we be focused on in terms of spending? When it comes to transparency and accountability, Canadians deserve better leadership than what the Conservative government has been offering.

I would like to expand on what this means. Last month I held my annual series of town hall meetings as part of my community consultations. I asked constituents to rank by importance a variety of public policy issues and economic concerns. As was the case in every year I have held these consultations, health care was the highest-ranked issue.

Since coming to power, the government has made little to no progress on reducing wait times, increasing home care, ensuring better access to primary care, or implementing a cost-saving pharmacare plan.

Yesterday the 2004 health care accord officially expired, with no new accord to replace it. Instead of negotiating a new deal, the Conservatives unilaterally imposed a new funding formula on the provinces and have walked away from the commitments to setting standards on wait times, home care, and prescription drugs. The government's record on health care is clear. It is failing to show leadership on this crucial file and is opening the door to increased disparities across our country.

As official opposition, the NDP is listening to Canadians and is holding the government to account for its failed record on health care.

Today we are holding Conservatives to account for their abuse of taxpayers' money and the culture of corruption and entitlement that seems to have overtaken the leadership of the Conservative Party. The public purse is out $118,000 because the government has been treating government jets as personal and partisan taxis. That $118,000 equals old age security for 19 seniors, GIS allowance for 20 seniors, or the average annual pension for five retired veterans.

The Conservative government has done little to address the challenges facing Canada's aging population or to provide adequate services to our Canadian veterans. I find this appalling.

Instead, Conservatives have made it harder for seniors to retire with dignity. OAS changes mean many are forced to work an additional two years before they are allowed to retire.

This is unacceptable. We need change. The NDP is focused on change, and we will bring that change in 2015.

Bill C-5—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Bill C-8—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice on the part of the government House leader.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government Aircraft

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member address the House on the opposition day motion and to the point of order that was raised. I am all for leniency in ensuring members get to say what is on their minds, and I was making a note of the issues he raised.

The member pointed out health care as a very important issue to his constituents, and the 2014 health care accord has now expired. The government has made a mess of that. Debating the expiration of the health care accord would have been a great opposition day motion. In Canada we now do not have a valid accord.

He pointed out improving democracy, the Senate, the Elections Act, and the issue of time allocation. We just witnessed the government House leader bringing forward time allocation. He mentioned in camera proceedings and government priorities. Very little that was talked about had to do with the planes. The misuse of taxpayers' dollars was also referred to.

I have a question for the member. Can he explain to us how the NDP came up with the current motion as the priority, given the list of other priority issues that were provided as potential opposition day motions? The member made reference to a number of them that would have been of great value in a debate here today. In the member's opinion, would some of those other issues have been better opposition day motions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and his observation of my speech and intervention. I was trying to point out some relevant priorities that we could be looking at for the use of those dollars, and that Canadians want to see a better use of taxpayer dollars.

To add to the list that I have, the truth is the government does not care about the growing inequality in our country. It does not care that child care is wildly unaffordable or that poverty among seniors is on the rise or that British Columbia has the highest child poverty rate in the country. In fact, the government does not think it has a responsibility to feed our neighbour's child. It simply does not care.

For the government, it is business as usual, whether it is bringing friends on the Challenger jets or trying to find loopholes and ways that are not fair. The average Canadian would not have that opportunity.

That is what I am trying to point out to the House as what we do not want to see. We want to change that situation. The NDP is bringing forward motions that address this kind of waste and inequity.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is trying to tell the NDP what issues are important to Canadians and how we should be doing our jobs.

Throughout this debate, instead of talking about the issue at hand, the Conservatives have gone off track, taking their time. They are praising our military, but they are completely out of touch with the debate. My colleagues in the other parties do not seem to see a problem with the abuse of Canadians' trust and taxpayers' dollars. That does not seem to be an issue or a priority.

Can my NDP colleague elaborate on why we in the NDP feel that the abuse of trust and the waste of public funds for the benefit of the Prime Minister's friends is an important issue to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point. I think that is at the heart of the matter of why we were debating this motion that we have brought forward.

It is the responsibility of each of us as parliamentarians to ensure that public money is spent with a frugal and restrained spirit. When spent properly, tax dollars can be used by government to make smart investments, provide impressive returns, and improve the socio-economic prosperity of all Canadians.

We are pointing out that the use of tax dollars is critical when we are seeing cuts across the country to all departments that provide important services and programs to Canadians. Canadians do not want to see flagrant misuse of tax dollars by the Prime Minister's wealthy friends when we know what they are doing is fundraising for the party through specific partisan purposes and rewarding their friends by using taxpayer-funded jets. We find that unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the sometimes dishevelled but always chivalrous member for Winnipeg North.

If we could get to the heart of this particular issue, the House of Commons has spent nearly a day talking about a particular topic, a high-end and sensitive subject about jets and a privileged and executive class that gets to access the jets.

A Canadian, on a normal day in a normal lifetime, will never set foot on an executive private jet to go from one point to another within our country or to another country. It is a privileged notion, but it is also part of doing business in a country as affluent, as vast, and as broad as Canada.

We are talking about this issue because it is a touchstone. It is an example of whether we are stewards of the public trust and stewards of the tax dollar and understand that our roles and responsibilities go beyond the norm in making sure that not only are we ensuring the integrity of the public purse but are seen to be ensuring it.

We are talking access by the ruling party, the front bench, and occasionally guests on board private jet aircraft going to different events. I think we all recognize that a prime minister of Canada has unique responsibilities and circumstances that require his or her access to these types of travel services.

What I note about the debate is that we have not necessarily done a very good job of isolating the issues, proposing and formulating solutions, and seeking consensus on solutions. I suggest we have not used this debate very wisely because I really have not heard a concrete agenda come forward as to how we can move the goalposts and actually increase the level of accountability, create a consensus as to what that accountability should be, and then enact it.

I have heard a lot of talk during the course of the morning and afternoon about “That crowd did it, so do not expect us to do anything different” or “We never had a chance to do it, so we can say whatever we want.” It is not really so simple or trite as just that. Canadians who are listening to this debate carefully are asking for a little higher discussion and resolution to evolve.

If we simply say the goalpost is what was done in the past and anyone who did anything that may bear criticism in the past is no longer competent to participate in the debate, the debate shuts down pretty quickly. In fact, just about every debate that will ever occur in the House will shut down very quickly if that is the standard we use. One of our objectives, responsibilities, and requirements as parliamentarians is to move the debate and the standard forward. We have not done that today.

For example, if we were to simply say there is a vacant seat on an aircraft and that it is therefore not only reasonable but responsible for a civilian non-government employee, someone outside the government's normal business, to occupy that seat on a private executive jet to travel with a formal government party to another location, I am not so sure that would bear scrutiny if we were to apply the same principle to a military aircraft going between Trenton and Halifax. If I wanted my son's hockey team to go on it because it was empty and had some space in it, and my son's hockey team was going to Halifax for a tournament, why could the whole hockey team not be put on that military plane to go to Halifax?

It does not seem that this is a sensible option, administratively, from the point of view of ensuring that taxpayers' assets are protected and that stewardship of those assets is ensured. The military would probably be the first to say that it is not a responsible use of defence assets. Why is it then okay for a civilian, a friend of someone, a business partner, or a friend of a political party to accompany the Prime Minister on that jet if there is an empty seat on it? Why would someone not do that? It is because there is a protocol.

Perhaps it is not the right standard to use to simply say that if there is a seat vacant, it is open for the next occupant who might want to use it. How would we price that seat if indeed we were to use it? Perhaps I might be able to bid on a plane ticket at a charity auction. If the plane ticket came in at $50 to go between Halifax and Ottawa, maybe that would be the market value of the seat. That is what I saw here today. There was a little bit of trying to determine the lowest value of a seat. We would establish that by getting the lowest fare one could possibly find and using it as the benchmark. There might be a lot of $50 seats in private executive jets in the very near future.

I am not so sure this is the right standard to use for pricing this particular service and for making sure that the taxpayers' investment is protected.

What the jet should be used for is also relevant and important. It would have been good if we could have come to a consensus within the House as to whether it is right for the Prime Minister to use a Department of National Defence Challenger jet aircraft to go to political events. The answer could be yes if we were to determine that the Prime Minister has certain responsibilities and has to travel on this aircraft, based on RCMP security advice. The question then becomes whether it is something that should occur on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis. We did not establish that.

The other thing we need to establish is whether it is fair for the Prime Minister, who has to use these jets, to expect the taxpayers to transport his family to different events. Again, the argument comes back to the Prime Minister having to travel by this aircraft to go to other locations in the country. The question then becomes not whether it is responsible but how often it is responsible for the Prime Minister to use this jet.

If we establish a credible standard of accountability, give people confidence that we understand that the stewardship of taxpayers' dollars is our primary objective, and at the same time take complicated matters, assimilate a variety of issues, and come forward with a credible plan that meets a 21st century standard, we will have done our jobs. I cannot see how we have done that here today, because we are really no further ahead in establishing a reasonable, responsible standard for an executive of the Prime Minister's Office or a minister of national defence to use when allocating or accounting for these resources and reporting the use of these resources to the public. Maybe at another time we might be in a position to do so.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a province where we have only 14 MPs, because we have representation by population. We are protected by the Constitution, so we do not need more MPs.

The New Democrats are not represented by their party in our province. Is it ethical for them to set up an office in Saskatoon because they feel that they have to have an MP there, yet there has not been an NDP candidate elected as an MP? I want to hear the member's comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question on the use of the Challenger aircraft by the executive, or was it actually a question about the use by the NDP of House of Commons resources?

The hon. member raises a valid point. The use of House of Commons resources to establish offices outside the national capital region by the leader's office is actually being examined by the Board of Internal Economy. That question will be answered through a set process. Obviously, on its face, there seems to be a disconnect between the normal purpose of those resources versus what they are being used for by the NDP.

We live in challenging times. These are challenging questions, but we have a responsibility to ask them and to have them answered. That is why it would have been very helpful for the members of the government to have come forward today with a stronger blueprint for the use of executive aircraft by the executive of the government.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as it is the first time I have risen after the speech by our colleague, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, I would like to congratulate him on his more than 25 years of service to the House and for being such a strong defender of Scarborough and of his constituents. I wish him luck in his future endeavours and much happiness with his family.

On today's debate, I just heard the member say that he would have liked the government to have come forward with a stronger blueprint in regard to the use of the Challenger jets by the government and by the Prime Minister. Of course, with opposition motions, we collectively, as a House, try to make the determination that the government should provide that clearer blueprint in the future.

Of course the jets should not be used to transport anyone other than those required for the safety and security of the Prime Minister and his family. I would like to ask the member if he actually has any suggestions to give the government in regard to how we could offer better transparency and accountability with regard to the use of the Challenger jets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Communication on the use of the jets is normally achieved through filing an access to information request. One suggestion I would offer is that there should be an open portal, a recorded log on the use of all Challenger jets. In it would be recorded the purpose of the flight. It would be made available on the Internet for all to see. Those who were part of the flight manifest would be recorded. It would also note whether they were government employees or were associated with the government directly. If they were not, it would note what exactly their role was and why they were on the jet.

Instead of having to file access to information requests on an event-by-event basis, which can be administratively cumbersome, having an interface where this information is open and available on a portal makes a lot of sense to me.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Rail Transportation; and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, International Trade.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address the NDP motion. I had the opportunity to address it through questions. I have listened attentively to a number of speakers on the motion, and a number of questions come to mind. I would like to look at what I believe the NDP is hoping to address with this particular motion.

Some of the consistent phrases we get from the members are “misuse of taxpayer dollars”, “abuse of public trust”, “holding government accountable”, “wasting government resources”, and “abuse of public funds”.

We have had members, in particular the most recent NDP speaker, say that it is the heart of the matter. Let there be no doubt that what offends the New Democrats on this particular day is the issue of abuse of public funds. That is something I want to spend some time talking about, because as they have clearly indicated, that is what is really at issue.

It was not that long ago that we had our opposition day motion. Members will recall that we had an opposition day motion that received the unanimous support of the House. With that particular motion, we too were trying to get more transparency and accountability inside the House. Who would oppose something of that nature? It was with regard to the issue of proactive disclosure.

Members will recall that it was the leader of the Liberal Party, back in June of last year, who stood in his place and tried to get the unanimous support of the House for proactive disclosure for all members of Parliament.

A number of New Democratic MPs said no. As a result, we were not able to enact it in June. We were not overly discouraged by that, because we believe in transparency and accountability. The leader of the Liberal Party has talked a lot about that. He mandated that if a person is a Liberal member of Parliament, he or she will be participating in proactive disclosure. It was to take effect, I believe, in the last quarter.

If people go to my website, if I can get in a bit of a promotion, www.mpkevin.ca, they will be able to link to my proactive disclosure. I did not object to it, but the leader of the Liberal Party did not give us a choice. We had to participate, because he made it in the form of a motion for which he could not get unanimous support, and we wanted to move forward.

It was not that much longer before the Conservatives jumped on board on that particular issue. It was only the leader of the NDP and the New Democratic caucus who resisted. They resisted for months.

The abuse of public funds, public trust, misuse of tax dollars, and holding government accountable being the heart of the matter, we introduced an opposition day motion that, in essence, forced all members of the House into proactive disclosure. The NDP members were kind of cornered, and they ultimately voted in favour of it. Why? I suspect that they had to vote in favour of it.

Part of proactive disclosure means that we have to now tell our voters, or all Canadians, where we are flying and the actual costs of our flights.

We have been doing this for months within the Liberal Party caucus. However, because of that opposition day motion, the NDP will have to do it. Its members did not volunteer.

To me, this was a very productive opposition motion. It realized an obligation to improve the system.

As my colleague from Atlantic Canada has so eloquently put on the table, it would be nice to see an opposition motion here that would provide a little more guidance.

I would put a challenge to the New Democrats to tell us where the leader of the New Democrats has been flying at taxpayers' expense, and the dates, if NDP members do not have a problem with transparency and accountability. This is something the Liberal Party does and the Conservative Party has been doing. However, I would argue that the New Democratic members do have a problem with that issue. They like to talk tough, but in reality it is quite different.

In reality, we have the leader of the New Democratic Party, who believes he has the right to establish offices in Saskatchewan and Quebec. On the surface, he does. Nothing prevents him from going ahead and establishing party offices wherever he wants, but there is a bit of a condition here: it should not be the taxpayers of Canada who are responsible for financing those offices. If it wants to open up a political office in Saskatchewan or Quebec, it should be the New Democratic Party that foots the bill and not the taxpayers. However, he has found a way through the leader's office and allocated money that was meant to support the leader here in Ottawa. He has kind of shuffled those responsibilities off. Is that not an abuse of taxpayers' dollars?

This issue is going to the procedure and House affairs committee and in part to the Board of Internal Economy committee, and there have been references to other outside independent organizations on this.

Now that the NDP has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar, its members are being relatively quiet on the issue, which is why I am surprised they would bring up this issue today. I would have thought they would have had a little humility in terms of the abuse of our taxpayers here in Canada, because it is not just the leader's office. Remember, they spent close to $2 million on mail going into 30 ridings, or something like that. It is an outrageous amount of tax dollars that are going out. Let us see how that is going.

I was surprised, but there was one member who stood up who I think should be a part of the NDP House leadership team because he had a lot of good ideas. He was talking about issues that are important. In one of his answers, he talked about feeding children and poverty in Canada. These are very important issues. He also talked about health care.

Well, the health care accord has expired, and it is a very important issue to all Canadians. Why not challenge the government in terms of why it has not renewed the health care accord?

Given the importance of today, April 1, there is no longer a health care accord in place. It expired yesterday as of midnight. As the member said, it was a very important issue in his constituency. I can tell members that in Winnipeg North it is a very important issue.

The member also made reference to improving democracy and the Canada Elections Act. The reason I was not able to be in the chamber for the full day was that I had to sit in on part of the procedure and House affairs committee, which is dealing with the Canada Elections Act. The member is right, 120-plus political scientists and all sorts of others are offended by this. It is a bad piece of legislation, and the member then went into detail in terms of why it is so bad.

I could also make reference to time allocation, the Senate, in camera proceedings, and priorities. This is what the New Democratic member was talking about, all of which I would suggest are very important issues.

That is why I am surprised that it is today, of all days. When I first saw it and understood that we were going to be debating it, I thought about April Fool's. I thought the New Democrats had to be joking, on April 1. It is no joke. This is the issue they wanted to deal with today.

We will have to wait and see what happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member, it is very interesting to hear the focus where he feels he has to generate his so-called attack.

Every member knows full well that the work the NDP is doing through its Montreal office is using the same dollars that are being brought together to deal with the constituents there, in the same fashion as for the constituency offices that have just been merged, because we have a new caucus down there, to make things work more efficiently. It is to use the dollars as they should be used.

I know there is a history in the Liberal Party of the entitlements and the sponsorship scandal, where millions of dollars drifted off to who knows where. However, today we are talking about the government use of jets and who has access to the Prime Minister through travel.

It is very important and, truthfully, I think the Liberals should spend a little more time shooting at the government side, rather than shooting at the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is important to remind the NDP of how out of touch it is with Canadians.

Let us take a look at the statement made by the member. I happen to have one of the applications for the job opportunities that lists the qualifications expected of individuals who were applying for the jobs out in Saskatchewan in the so-called outreach office. It is interesting. The very first qualification is “Experience in outreach, event planning, election or issue based campaigns”. I would underline the word “election”.

These are things that political parties are doing. Who are they trying to fool? Shame on the New Democrats for trying to stretch reality to fit what they cannot do, and that is come up with enough money to finance their own political offices in the provinces.

I trust and I hope we will get to the bottom of this issue.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member said that in Montreal he can qualify it, but he did not qualify it in Saskatchewan. I believe it is because in Montreal they have members, so they are pooling their resources, if I understood it correctly.

I wondered if the member understood it correctly. In Saskatchewan, I do not know if he has heard, but there are no NDP members there, and I doubt there will be for a long time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there have not been any NDP members in Saskatchewan since 2004. Whatever the voters decide in 2015, they will ultimately decide.

What I will suggest is that an outreach office is an outreach office, so if they are calling it an outreach office in Saskatchewan and an outreach office in the province of Quebec, I assume they are doing the same thing. The bottom line is that they are being financed with public dollars, when they should in fact be financed by their own political party.

Raise the money and properly finance it. Do not abuse the Canadian taxpayer.

That is what the heart of this motion was all about today. That is actually what they said. They talked about abuse of public funds. One member said that was the heart of the matter. I am right at the heart of the matter. That is why they need to reflect on what they are doing.

Eventually, we will find out. Whether it is through the Board of Internal Economy, the procedure and House affairs committee, Elections Canada, or even possibly the RCMP, we will get to the truth of the matter.

The leader of the New Democratic Party needs to come to the table and be a little bit more transparent on this particular issue.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North started his remarks by recounting the history of proactive disclosure in this place and properly indicated that it was the Liberal Party that took the lead with the proactive disclosure of expenses. The Conservatives then followed and, several months later, it appears that now the NDP is on side.

I wonder if the member could provide, for the benefit of the House in general and the NDP in particular, what the post-proactive disclosure world is like? How have his constituents responded? Has it changed the way in which he has been able to do his work? Just for the benefit of the NDP, which is not yet there, what is it like once members start proactively disclosing their expenses?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members will find that it really is not very difficult and that their constituents are encouraged by it, because they do ask why not share with the taxpayer where members are flying at taxpayers' expense, the cost of that, and the hospitality. This is something that will evolve in time. I am very grateful that it was the leader of the Liberal Party who came out with this initiative in June of last year.

The Conservatives took it upon themselves to ultimately accept it. We had to kind of haul the New Democrats or force them to do it, but I am sure they will respect the new administration and will comply. I am sure they will find there is nothing really to fear, as long as they are following the rules of course.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laval.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this subject matter.

I understand why the Liberals are lighting their hair on fire and getting upset about this issue because it really brings out the government's hypocrisy, which is what part of today's motion is about. The Conservatives criticized the Liberals for things they were doing when they were in office but the Conservatives are now doing the very same things.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien called the Challenger jet a “flying Taj Mahal”.

This is about whether we can trust the Conservative government. Questions are raised when a government does the exact opposite of what it said it would do before it took power.

There are a lot of important matters to talk about in this chamber and I will touch on some of them, such as where the resources could go. I am also going to talk about Conservative hypocrisy, about doing the opposite of what they said they would do.

I will be in the House 12 years this coming May. I have been here during a Liberal majority, a Liberal minority, a Conservative minority, and a Conservative majority. I have seen the back and forth that goes on. It reminds me of the days of Tommy Douglas, when he talked about Mouseland and the white cats and the black cats; the only two choices that people had.

The government goes back and forth on many different issues. What really burns the Liberals about this issue is that it brings out their hypocrisy as well.

I am going to read the motion brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay carefully:

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 interesting to note that in question period today, the Prime Minister said in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition that he was lowering the cost by bringing his buddies along. That is condescending. The public knows it is pretty hard to get a $260 ticket on a plane that is fully catered, fully staffed, private, and provides special privileges. That is not real.

The former premier of Alberta recently resigned over costs to Alberta taxpayers. It must be in Conservatives' DNA. I do not know why the Conservatives are wired that way.

It is clear that this is an important issue to talk about because it is about trust. It is about the Conservative government being unaccountable to taxpayers.

Mark Kihn is one individual who is on the plane quite often. He goes back to the Prime Minister's roots. He was a party fundraiser and was also involved in the Prime Minister's election campaign. He raised millions of dollars for the Prime Minister. He is not an ordinary individual. If he can raise millions of dollars for the Prime Minister, then why can he not pay the equivalent of a first-class ticket on the Prime Minister's plane instead of paying the economy fare? It is also important to note that he and everybody else on that plane has the Prime Minister's ear. They could be VIPs, corporate and such. These individuals have access to privileged meetings with the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister once fought against this. Here is what he said:

My wife, Laureen, and I ran our own small businesses. We had to pay our own health care premiums. We had to purchase our own supplemental health care coverage, like most people in the country. We cannot afford to fly to clinics in the United States to get health care when things go wrong and we certainly cannot afford to get on Challenger jets to do it.

That was what the Prime Minister said in 2002. Interestingly enough, that was shortly after he came back into the House of Commons. There was a group of seven of us at that time in the May byelections 12 years ago, and he said that as the member representing the Canadian Alliance party. Members will remember the Canadian Alliance party. Well, they are here. They actually devoured the Conservative Party, essentially, and that is what we have right now. The Prime Minister, at that time, made that comment.

A couple of years after that, he also said the following:

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.

That is what the Prime Minister said then.

I understand why the Liberals feel they have something stuck in their teeth on this. It is because their behaviour was called out at that time by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has lost his way. There is no doubt about it. He has lost his edge in terms of wanting to clean up Ottawa. Ottawa has clearly cleaned the Conservatives up. This is what has taken place, and we have seen that erosion take place over time. It is unfortunate. Whether it be democratic reform most recently or cuts, this money is consequential, and I want to touch on that briefly.

Let us look at what is taking place in my riding of Windsor West. The Conservatives have closed the veterans office. They recruited out of my riding very heavily. Two years ago, they closed the recruiting office. Just over a month ago, they closed the veterans office, with over 4,000 cases worked on by that office per year. People now have to go to London, Ontario, or have somebody come from London, Ontario—over a two-hour drive away—to see someone. How is it possible that there is no money to support our veterans?

Postal services are being cut. Get this. There is no money to sort the mail in Windsor any more and despite having the highest efficiency rate in the country, the mail is gathered up, driven to London Monday to Thursday, it is sorted, driven all the way back to Windsor on Highway 401, mixed in with just-in-time delivery trucks for the auto industry, the aerospace industry and other types of industries, and finally gets distributed around the community. That is all because there was not enough money to purchase a new sorting machine that would have increased efficiency. Businesses are getting their cheques later, people are getting their bills later, and now there is going to be a reduction of home delivery services as well. The consul general's office closed in Detroit. Service Canada, with one of the highest records of staff, two years ago received an award for efficiency. Do members know what the result was? It was that approximately 73 employees got pink slips in a high unemployment area.

When we talk about this issue, we talk about it in terms of what the Conservatives said they would do when they got to power versus what they are doing right now, and that is really about trust. It is why more and more Canadians do not trust the Prime Minister and the government anymore, because they have lost their way. The small things do matter. They matter in the House of Commons and they matter in life. Although some may say this is a small thing and brush it off, it is part of a pattern of behaviour that needs to end, and the New Democrats will do that.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but enter the dialogue after hearing the member misquote and misrepresent what our government has in fact done for and on behalf of veterans and their families. His information with respect to where people have to go now to obtain services is absolutely not correct.

Veterans who need services who are under the care and support of Veterans Affairs Canada, do not have to leave at all. Since 2005–06, our government has put aside some $4.7 billion of extra funding for services and benefits for veterans and their families. The member is indicating otherwise when he and his party, the New Democratic Party, in at least eight consecutive budgets in which we proposed increased benefits and services for veterans and their families, voted against all of them. For the party to criticize any of that is the height of hypocrisy.