Brad Butt

[Senate Reform Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend and I found a fair number of contradictions in what he was saying to the House. One is either for democracy or not but the member is both for and against democracy. I found that very contradicting.

Our goal here is to make the Senate more transparent and ensure that it plays an effective role in Parliament. I do not think I heard the member talking about a constitutional war with the provinces to kill the Senate. , I think our role as parliamentarians is to make the Senate as democratic and transparent as possible and to ensure that the senators over there are doing good work for Canadians.

Perhaps the member could take a moment to better explain whether he believes senators should be elected or whether senators should continue to be appointed in the way they have been for 143 years.

[Senate Reform Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I attended a round table in Toronto with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. We had a very diverse group of people around the table.

We talked about different things around democratic renewal generally, and we did talk a little bit about the Senate. One of the things that people around that table did say was that they wanted to see the Senate be more effective. They believe the Senate plays an important role in representing regional interests and regional differences.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give a little bit more background on how these reforms are going to make the Senate more visible and more active for Canadians?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member for Kings—Hants but I do not think I heard whether the official position of the Liberals will be to support this motion or not.

Maybe the member would take this opportunity to be quite clear with the House on whether this is the start of the Liberal-NDP coalition on motions in this House or whether the Liberal Party will be voting against this motion?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for a very well thought out and explained reaction to this bizarre motion that we are dealing with today. I am not quite sure whether NDP economic policy reflects Karl Marx or Groucho Marx.

If we had gone the route that the NDP is suggesting and significantly increased debt and spending, would we not very much be in the same kind of crisis that we see many European countries in today? Would that not be very wrong-headed for Canada?

[The Economy, September 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government's top priority is the completion of the economic recovery. With a still fragile global economy, Canadians have given us a strong mandate to implement our low-tax plan to create jobs and economic growth. It is a plan that is working.

The Bank of Montreal deputy chief economist told the finance committee yesterday that “compared to policy-making in the rest of the world, Canada's economic policy-making has been exemplary”.

While the NDP does what it can to oppose jobs and growth with still too many Canadians out of work, the government continues to remain focused on Canada's top priority.

People in my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville want to get back to work. The government is supporting their efforts with initiatives such as the hiring credit for small businesses. The government will continue to keep Canada on the right path.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned his two young granddaughters.

I am the father of two daughters. One is 11 years old and the other is 7 years old. I am particularly concerned about the possibility of a sexual assault occurring because of those people on the street who take advantage of our children. Would the member highlight the areas of the bill that he believes would send them a message?

Sending a message to those people who would prey on innocent children is key. It would be a deterrent for them to know there are stiff penalties in place which their snazzy defence attorneys are unable to bargain or whittle down in a courtroom because the law is tough on that.

Does the member agree? Could he speak more on that particular part of the bill?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York West and I have known each other for many years. I know she was a former minister of citizenship and immigration and she will appreciate how from time to time there are very difficult situations the governments of the day and the minister of the day must deal with when situations present themselves.

Canada certainly is not encouraging boatloads of refugees through smugglers to come to Canada, but it does happen from time to time. I am surprised to hear the member speak against the bill recognizing the fact that she was in the minister's shoes at one point in time and perhaps may have wanted to exercise some of the powers under the bill.

Could she explain why things are different today than when she was the minister previously?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to what the member was saying and I am concerned. It seems to me the member is advocating that people who claim refugee status in this country should not need to have proper documentation so that we can verify who they are, where they are from, and that they are bona fide refugees. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that an applicant establish his or her identity and the Canadian courts have upheld this.

Is the member really saying that anyone who arrives in Canada should simply be released to walk around freely when we do not know who the person is or what the person has done in his or her country of origin, or whether the person has committed crimes in other lands? How would this ensure the safety and security of Canadian families?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

You should've signed the deal.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the issue of rotating strikes. I was in the small business world before I came to this place. If half of my employees decided not to show up or picket outside my business and the other half came to work and at another branch location half of them showed up and the other half did not, I could not run my business like that.

How could Canada Post be expected to run its business when it never knew who was going to show up on which day? Of course it had no option other than to shut the system down and protect the health and safety of the workers who did show up, because God knows that they were going to be asked to do. Who knows what they would be asked to do when half the people are out or the Halifax branch is out but Montreal is working and Vancouver is out and there are rotating strikes.

One cannot run a business that way. The union made it very clear, in my view. I really do not want to pick sides, but the union made it very clear the rotating strikes were going to continue ad nauseam. They were not going to stop. It was not just a protest for a couple of days; it was going to continue on and on, I assume until a collective agreement was reached. Nobody can run a business like that. It is impossible.