Steven Fletcher

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the remarks by my colleague from Winnipeg North.

He spoke of infrastructure, and I was quite surprised. The member may not be aware of the fact that this government introduced the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history.

The member also spoke about consultation. I was minister of state for transport and I assisted the then minister of transport in creating the building Canada fund. At some $53 billion, it is the largest infrastructure program ever.

The FCM and municipalities throughout Manitoba and across western Canada all support our infrastructure plan. Why is the member speaking ill of it when everyone else supports it? Why does he vote against it?

[Adoption, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud last year when our government expanded the adoption expense tax credit, which recognizes some additional costs borne by adoptive parents.

It is estimated that 2,000 children are adopted from within Canada every year, yet, 30,000 children who are in the care of child welfare agencies across the country are also waiting to be adopted. This means we need to do more, and that is exactly what we are doing through economic action plan 2014.

Currently, eligible adoption expenses related to the completed adoption of a child under the age of 18 may be claimed up to a maximum of $11,774. Economic action plan 2014 proposes to increase the maximum amount of eligible expenses to $15,000. This is fantastic news for prospective Canadian families who are looking to give a deserving child a loving home.

[Electricity, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is blessed with an abundance of cheap, clean hydroelectric power.

In Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, electricity is often generated using carbon-emitting fossil fuels. If Alberta utilized a few thousand megawatts of power from Manitoba, it could significantly reduce Alberta's carbon footprint and help with the case for Keystone XL. The distance from Alberta's oil fields to the hydro dams in Manitoba is approximately the same distance as the existing transmission lines that go from the Nelson River to Winnipeg.

Therefore, we know that technology for the transmission of power at these distances already exists. Perhaps infrastructure funds could be found for projects of this type of regional significance. Manitoba power generation could assist in the further development of the Ring of Fire in northwestern Ontario. When it comes to power, we have to look outside the provincial boxes.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and his comments. What struck me was the negativity from the member. It was negative, negative, negative. He did not highlight any of the positive aspects of the budget, not even one.

His province of Quebec, like my province of Manitoba, receives a lot of payments through the federal transfers. I wonder if he could at least acknowledge that Quebec benefits from these billions of dollars in transfers, as I am happy to acknowledge that Manitoba benefits from the billions of dollars it receives from the federal government.

Will the member say thanks to the federal government for the transfer payments?

[Veterans Affairs, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saddened to learn of the passing of a great Canadian.

Cliff Chadderton passed away on Saturday at the age of 94, leaving behind family and a grieving veterans community. Would the minister please remind the House why Cliff Chadderton was such a remarkable veteran and Canadian?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the leader of the Green Party that the rumblings she is hearing are from my tummy. There are no other rumblings coming from the Conservative Party. We fully support this budget and what it does for Canadians.

Given all the great things this budget does for aboriginal people, homeless people, the environment, and the economy as a whole, why would the Green Party vote against all of these wonderful initiatives? Can the member answer that?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would simply provide a road map on how one would proceed in the future when it comes to supervised injection sites. I do not know why the member opposite does not support requiring organizations to provide basic information on signs and public safety or to consult the community. The community's views are very important.

Why does the member want to disregard all that? These are all good provisions in the bill. That is why he should support it, so support the bill.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is very clear.

I am not sure why the member is opposed to the minister gathering the scientific evidence. The bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information needed to make informed decisions. Why does the member opposite not support organizations providing basic information on science, public safety and community views?

Obviously community views are going to be important in any decision. The opposition seems to brush that away, as if that is not important. Well, it is important, and this bill is important to protect Canadians. Why is the member opposed to community views?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I am surprised that he would have a problem with public consultation and studies of the science of having a supervised injection site and getting other stakeholders in the community to provide their input. Is his fear perhaps that if people found out that there was going to be an injection site, they would disallow it, or is he just not confident in his own argument on the healthiness of these injection sites?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with disappointment. In fact, the NDP is the ideological party when it comes to this issue. I appeal to the common sense of Canadians when they are watching this debate and ask if helping people inject illicit drugs over long periods of time is good public policy. New Democrats seem to say yes.

I would suggest that this bill would protect the public from criminal elements that are often found in and around injection sites. It is obviously more healthy to have a treatment program. This government invests billions of dollars in housing strategies, we work with the provinces on drug addiction, and the NDP votes against all of it. Who are the hypocrites? It is the New Democrats.