Raymond Côté

[Rail Transportation, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, well, the Conservatives are doing nothing to address the concerns of Canadians.

That is why parents in Beauport—Limoilou were forced to form a watchdog group called Vigilance ferroviaire Limoilou to make up for the government's inaction.

They are concerned about the train traffic by their children's school, and I do not blame them. They do not understand why carriers have no obligation to disclose the contents of their cars, and neither do I.

What does the minister intend to do in practical terms to reassure the parents in Limoilou?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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 surprisingly 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?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

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?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the hon. member for Avalon refused to answer my question. The Liberal track record on the abuse of public funds is quite telling.

In fact, at the time, the Conservatives criticized the use of the Challenger jets, which amounted to $1 million, according to the speeches we heard. That is a huge amount. Admittedly, the Liberals are difficult to match when it comes to their misuse of public funds, not to mention the meal-related expenses.

Would the hon. member for Avalon like to comment on this use of funds at the time?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny to hear the hon. member for Avalon trying to lecture us, when he was faced with a decision that caught him unprepared, like all of his caucus colleagues. It was the hon. member for Papineau's decision to exclude Liberal senators from the caucus. It was an impulsive decision. The member for Papineau was probably thrown hard off his horse on the road to Damascus, because he had fought tooth and nail for years to keep senators in the Liberal caucus.

However, what is pretty incredible is that, in the end, the hon. member for Avalon is clearly ignoring the fact that the Liberals have populated the Senate with organizers and fundraisers for decades. This practice was widespread among the Liberals. It was systematic, in fact.

Would the hon. member for Avalon like to recognize the wrongs of the Liberal Party and perhaps help his party emerge from its third party status in the House?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I find it rather amusing to see the Parliamentary Secretary using thick markers to try to describe the well-known reality of the Prime Minister's security. A bit like a child, she is laying it on thick, telling us that this is a tree, this is the sun, this is the safety and security of the Prime Minister. Let us be serious. The issue is not the safety and security of the Prime Minister, but rather the discount fares the Conservatives have put in place using public money and money from some of the Conservative Party's donors.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether, just like in the cartoon of the Minister of Justice, she is going to use the Sea King helicopters to find some semblance of credibility?