Steven Fletcher

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits), November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and the Liberal Party is really remarkable. In the House, it is only the Liberal Party that supports the status quo. No matter who we talk to from other parties, we all agree that change is necessary, that the Senate in its current form does not reflect the democratic values that Canadians hold dear in the 21st century. That is the debate we are having.

The government has proposed some moderate changes that are fully within the constitutional framework and the powers of this chamber to limit the length of time that a senator can be in office. Forty-five years is too long, most people would agree. The question is where to set that number, and that is what this debate is about.

The Liberal Party seems to want to have it all ways. On January 31, 2010, the leader of the Liberal Party was asked on Question Period whether he supports Senate term limits. His response was, “Do we need term limits? Yeah”. The previous Liberal critic indicated that term limits were necessary.

Combining Senate term limits and the Prime Minister's willingness to select senators through a democratic process, why will the Liberal Party not enter the 21st century like the rest of the parties in the House?

[Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits), November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the latter part of the member's comments. He concluded by stating that the Senate should be abolished. That would take a significant constitutional change. However, I think the member also recognizes that it is within the ability of this chamber, the House of Commons, to limit the Senate term, which was done in 1967 when it went from a lifetime term to a limit of age 75.

We are now looking at creating a proposal for an eight-year, non-renewable term. The people of Quebec support term limits. In fact, 71% of Quebeckers support a term limit of eight years. If the member would take this eight-year term limit in conjunction with our other Senate reform legislation, Bill S-8, Senatorial Selection Act, which empowers provinces to select senators any way they want, as long as it is in direct consultation with the citizens of that province, we could have a democratically elected Senate with eight-year terms.

It is pretty reasonable. The people of Quebec seem to support it. Will the member support it?

[Democratic Reform, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians feel that term limits of up to 45 years are just too long, and since forming the government, we have pursued Senate term limits. Today the Senate term limit legislation is up for debate, and if the opposition parties were keen on Senate reform, they would support our motion. I ask the opposition to support the will of Canadians, to support democracy, and to support our Senate term legislation.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I am reflecting upon the 13 long years of the Liberal government, when it cut moneys to the health care programs to the provinces.

The member referred to our current health minister. Let me just clarify the record. This government has done extraordinarily positive things for the health of the country. I reflect upon the hepatitis C compensation. The previous Liberal government, in which the member was a minister, denied hepatitis C victims compensation for years. Our government, within six months of forming office, found the moneys and moved forward. That demonstrates how this government is compassionate and caring and does things in a timely manner.

The member opposite has raised a lot of issues that are really of a partisan nature. What we should focus on is moving forward with this legislation to ensure the safety of Canadians.

The health minister mentioned that it had been 40 years since this legislation was adopted. Our government has been in office for 5 years. We had 13 long years of a Liberal government, and she was a member of that government. If the legislation is so essential, why does she not vote for it now and reflect upon why, during 13 long years, the Liberal government did nothing on this issue?

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is obviously important to parents and people who are concerned about the quality of products on the shelves.

I wonder if the minister could comment again, emphasizing how this bill will benefit families and empower government to deal with products on the shelves that are deemed unsafe.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the disappointing comments that the member from the NDP has raised not only about free trade with Panama, but also free trade in general. The NDP seems to always approach these issues as a zero sum game, that somehow by helping other countries it is to the detriment of Canadians. In fact, when countries work together, it benefits everyone. It is a non-zero sum, when the rising tide raises all boats.

The best economic choices that Canada can make is through free trade. This was demonstrated spectacularly with the free trade agreement with the United States, which the NDP opposes still to this day, in spite of everyone recognizing that it was good. The NDP also fails to recognize that not only do Canadians benefit by trading with countries like Panama, but the Panamanians benefit. The best social policy, the best foreign aid is to invest in countries like Panama to help those people improve their quality of life. The best environmental program, the best foundation for democracy is economic development. This is simply what the free trade agreements do around the world.

Will the NDP members recognize this is an ideological issue for them, that they do not support free trade with the United States, Panama or anyone else and it is harmful to the entire world? We would end up all poor if we follow the NDP philosophy.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the issues the member raised. First, the government is having a great day as is everyone who is a Canadian. Being a Canadian implies and means they are having a great day.

Second, the member talked about Republicanism at the beginning of his comment. I take offence to that. I am a monarchist and that is about as far away from Republicanism as one can get, so I hope the member reflects on that.

I want to point the great initiatives on democratic reform that the government is undertaking, from term limits for senators, to expanded voting opportunities, representation by population, getting tough on political loans. Canadians are asking for these to be passed. That is exactly what the government is doing, including bringing forward legislation on Senate elections, which has been a long-time demand of the people of Canada.

My question for the member deals with the Liberal Party. He is quite critical of the Liberal Party. It seems the Liberal Party is in great disarray. Look at what happened with the immigration bill that the NDP, the Bloc and this government came together to work on with great success and yet the Liberals were all over the map. They were left, they were right, back and forward, they did not know which direction they were going. Would the member agree that the Liberal Party is in complete disarray?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that the Bloc members are saying those things. In fact, they voted against the Veterans Charter. They voted against providing the equipment that the men and women in uniform need. They have voted against every initiative this government, and really any other government, has put forward to support the military members and their families.

First the Bloc members degrade the motivation of our men and women for their service to our great country. Then they say the thing they are now saying. Then when it comes time to stand and be counted, to provide the supports for our military, they vote no every time.

Will the Bloc members apologize for all the times they have said no to our military and for their refusal to support the military?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I am a bit disappointed that he minimized the role that people play in our military as just a job. Lots of people join the military for Queen and country, for protecting our freedoms, human rights and all the benefits we enjoy as Canadians.

The member sort of brushed off the history of the armed forces. Generation after generation of families and individuals joined the military because their parents and their grandparents did. They fought for our freedom. People know full well that when they volunteer for the army, the air force or the navy, they may be called upon to fight for our great country. That is not just a job, that is a calling. The people who do this surely need to be properly compensated, and this government has done more than any other government to ensure they are compensated and that they have the tools they need to do their job.

Could the hon. member maybe moderate the rhetoric and at least recognize that people in the military are doing what they believe in and are fighting and representing Canada abroad to make our country better for Queen and country.