Steven Fletcher

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and I am very disappointed.

First, let me say that the member had a very negative portrayal of our men and women in uniform, our police officers and our front-line public safety officials. I want to say that those people deserve respect, and we should honour them. They protect us every single day. That member should be ashamed for trying to run them down.

Second, the member said that this was somehow political, that the legislation is only here because of events of last week. That is ridiculous. The legislation has been before the various houses of Parliament for a very long time.

Today, we have to see how important it is that the government do its number one job, which is to protect the people who live within its boundaries. Why is the NDP always soft on crime and soft on terrorists?

[Canada Post, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post will respect the Supreme Court's decision on pay equity and implement the ruling as soon as possible.

As members know, the Crown is at arm's length from the government and is responsible for its own operations, including human resources. The issue the member is referring to is before the courts, and therefore I cannot comment further.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and he seems to be missing the big picture. The big picture is that trade creates wealth and jobs. Why is his party against all the free trade agreements? Why is his party against building a bridge between Detroit and Windsor that would help increase the flow of traffic, increase trade and create tens of thousands of jobs? Why is his party against the science of the Keystone XL project?

When it comes to anything economic, the NDP has no credibility. I would like to ask the member why not just give up?

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member support providing aid to countries that build aircraft carriers and have nuclear weapons rather than countries that need it. Also, in one fell swoop is also attacking Canadian manufacturers?

Russia, India and China are all nuclear powers and all have nuclear aircraft carriers. Brazil just got one as well. The hon. member is supporting countries that are advanced enough for nuclear weaponry, but he will not support manufacturing here. Why will he not support the funds for the Detroit-Windsor bridge?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about infrastructure. The budget presents the largest and longest investment in the history of the federal government on infrastructure: $32 billion over 10 years for a community improvement fund; $14 billion for a new building Canada fund; $1.2 billion for a new private-public partnership fund; $6 billion under the current infrastructure programs; $7 billion for first nations; hundreds of millions of dollars for specific projects in Quebec such as the bridges in Montreal.

The member is going to vote against all of it. How can he go back to his constituents and say he is voting against Quebec?

[Labour, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government does not support the use of public money for radical political propaganda.

It is shameful that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers refuses to apologize for this misuse of union dues and public funds to spread their anti-Israel rhetoric.

What is also shameful is that the Leader of the Opposition has yet to condemn CUPW for these appalling actions. Will the Leader of the Opposition continue to support—

[Labour, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is awful. Using public funds for radical political trips is wrong. CUPW should apologize for this misuse of public funds and its anti-Israel rhetoric.

Will the Leader of the Opposition continue to support his big union bosses and their radical political views, or will he stand with taxpayers and demand an apology for the misuse of these public funds and to the state of Israel?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister the opportunity to reflect on the NDP and Liberal positions.

It seems the Liberals compare our system to republics, which clearly shows they do not have a clue on how our system works. If they are going to compare with other countries, they might as well pick a constitutional monarchy, one like Australia, where it does work. To do anything else is just ridiculous.

I would like the minister to comment on how ridiculous the Liberal logic is, and also how disingenuous the NDP is in wanting to just abolish the Senate when it is not possible. Are they not just advocating for nothing to happen, for retaining the status quo? Is that not the real effect of the NDP position?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, how is this member going to explain this to Atlantic Canada? He is essentially saying that Atlantic Canada would lose 32 parliamentary positions, in an area that is already having many challenges. The New Democrats are actually proposing the status quo. Because the abolishment cannot happen, it would be much better if the New Democrats would adopt this government's plan for nine-year non-renewable terms, and elections in the provinces. Only this government has said that it would do that. The provinces would need to hold the elections and the Prime Minister would appoint who is elected. Those are things that would bring meaningful change to the Senate, and the New Democrats oppose it. However, by opposing it, they are actually supporting the status quo.

How would the member respond to that?

[Canada Post, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a crown corporation and is at arm's length from government. It makes its own decisions on operations and so on. However, we have imposed on Canada Post a moratorium on the closure of rural post offices, and we are working hard to ensure that Canada Post has a sustainable future.

Members of that party have done everything to undermine the mail service in the country. They should be ashamed.