Guy Lauzon

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I got carried away. The truth of the matter is that each and every one of the 308 members here, including the Liberals, are going to go back to their constituencies this evening or tomorrow. We are going to have to face our constituents. When I talk to the people who sent me here who said to me “do not steal my money and do not waste my money”, I am going to be able to say that I did not steal their money, and I did not waste it. I did not suggest that we talk about prorogation today, on June 17, just to have something to do so that I would not have to give credit to a good functioning government that created 300,000 jobs. We are in a recession, and the government has created 300,000 jobs.

When we, the 308 members, go back to our ridings, how are we going to explain that we spent all this time today, June 17, talking about prorogation? I do not know how we are going to explain that.

This motion and the three-month study on prorogation is a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. This debate was totally unnecessary. I am going to go back to my riding, and I am going to tell my constituents that I did not want to do this.

I was forced to do this by an opposition that is totally leaderless. If I were in the opposition and I had the leader they have, I would want to talk about prorogation. I would talk about anything other than leadership. This is a party bankrupt of ideas, totally bankrupt. The best they can come up with on the last day of this session is prorogation. That is the best topic they could come up with.

I am going to ask each and every one of the 308 members to go back to our ridings and say to every one of our constituents, “I promise that I will not waste your money and I will not steal it, and we will never discuss prorogation again in this House.”

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I seriously wanted to try to understand why we should be discussing prorogation today. I thought about that. When I found out that this was the motion that was put before the House as the opposition day motion, I wondered why they would do that.

Then it occurred to me that if I was in opposition and was over there, and I was looking at a government that had created 300,000 jobs, had been recognized around the world as a leader in economics, and had the best economy in the world right now, if I were sitting over there looking at a government that had accomplished that, I would try to change the channel.

Out of desperation, what would we think of? I would have thought of something better than prorogation, I must admit. However, the Liberals do not want to talk about lower taxes. They want to raise taxes. They do not want to talk about the fact that now the average family of four pays $3,000 less in taxes than when we took over four years ago. There is no word about that.

If they had used the economy as something they wanted to discuss today, they would have had to give us accolades. They would have had to say that the government is darn effective. Therefore, they talked about prorogation.

What about crime? Why did the Liberals not come up with something on crime? Why did they not come up with something about the faint hope clause or something along those lines? That would have made some sense. However, to pick prorogation, nobody can believe that. Talk about the faint hope clause, that is really faint hope. I am not trying to be funny. This is serious.

Three hundred and eight members have been sent here to not steal money and to not waste money. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves and the fact that we have talked about prorogation, because they have wasted a terrible amount of taxpayers' money on this day. This has been a total waste of the taxpayers' money.

You have to go home. You are heading home tonight—

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, “do not steal my money, and do not waste my money” was the instructive advice I was sent to Ottawa with when I was elected on June 28, 2004. That is probably the reason I was elected, because the previous government had stolen some money and had wasted lots of money. Seriously, I do not want to talk about stolen money, because Mr. Justice Gomery looked after that. We know that there was some money misappropriated. It is gone. Gomery has decided that, and that is over. I do not want to talk about that.

Let us talk about wasted money. My constituents said to me, “We will elect you, Guy, but you had better not steal our money or waste our money, because we do not want another $1 billion HRDC boondoggle”. They told me that if they ever caught me involved in anything like that, I would be de-elected really quick. They talked about a $2 billion gun registry, a total waste of money, and they said, “If you get into that kind of government, there is no way that you will ever be re-elected”.

That is what I was sent to Ottawa with. I get here, and what do we have here now? We have a motion that we have been discussing for I do not know how long, all day, hours and hours. Three hundred and eight members are seized with this here today. The opposition has suggested that we should talk about prorogation for six hours. We have been discussing it for three months. Where have those people been? It is incredible.

My constituents and their constituents said do not waste the money. They are wasting money. What is it about this that they do not understand?

I thought--

[Firearms Registry, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, constituents expect that democracy will be respected and those elected to Parliament will vote on their behalf. This is why the Liberal leader's decision to whip the vote on the long gun registry is so concerning.

The public safety committee has heard time and time again from provincial ministers, police chiefs and front-line police officers that the long gun registry is wasteful and ineffective. As Yukon's minister of the environment stated at committee, “Our only vote in the Yukon is being jeopardized by a whipped vote by the Liberals”.

What will the members who voted for Bill C-391 at second reading do? Will they ignore the voices of their constituents? Will they allow their vote to be whipped by the Liberal leader?

I urge all NDP and Liberal members, who voted for Bill C-391 at second reading, to listen to their constituents and not allow their votes to be determined by the Liberal leader.

[Canadian Navy, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this week we commence the celebration of the centennial of the Canadian navy when we will recognize the vibrant heritage of the navy and its long tradition of serving Canada and Canadians.

Yesterday the Minister of National Defence announced that the executive curl would be reintroduced to the naval officer uniform. This initiative is a result of the unanimous passage by the House of a motion that I introduced some weeks ago.

The curl was part of the Canadian naval officer's uniform from the founding of the Canadian Navy until unification. The curl will play an important role in distinguishing the more than 5,000 naval officers in the regular and reserve forces. We look forward to seeing the executive curl at the west coast International Fleet Review in June.

Today we salute the men and women of our navy and thank them for the 100 years of service to Canada. On a personal note, I would like to acknowledge the service of my deceased brother, André Lauzon, good friend Kendall Dolliver and each and every member present who served in the Canadian Navy during its proud 100-year history.

[National Defence, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Since coming to power, our Conservative government has worked hard to rebuild and re-equip the Canadian Forces after 13 years of Liberal neglect known as the decade of darkness. This morning the minister made an important announcement in this regard.

Could the minister please provide the details to this House?

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is an honour for me to stand here with this motion receiving such favourable comments from my colleagues opposite and all members of the House. Quite simply, the House has a wonderful opportunity to say to our proud and very brave men and women of the Canadian navy that yes we do respect and we uphold their valour and the great work that they do for our wonderful country. I would ask and encourage all my colleagues in the House to give full approval to the motion and I understand most members do agree and would ask you to ask for that consent, Mr. Speaker.

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I cannot speak for the defence minister, but I can tell the member that the minister and his department are fully aware of this. I have done a fair amount of research among navy veterans and this is significant to them.

When I sent out my first press release in my riding announcing that I was doing this, believe it or not there was only one person who thought this was folly. His basic point in a letter to the editor was why the heck was I wasting time on this given all the important things going on in the world? My office was deluged with phone calls in support of what I was doing.

Right across this great country, men, women and children, boys and girls, are proud of our armed forces. This government, of course, is proud of our armed forces. I would like to think that this whole House is proud of our armed forces. That is why I think we should do anything we can in this House to acknowledge the great work our armed forces do.

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am going to have to answer the second question of the hon. member with another question. I do not know why it took so long. Maybe I will throw the question back to him as well.

A large part of my heart belongs to our veterans, and I remember that one of the significant happenings in my career as a politician was when I was asked to open the Williamstown fair in my riding, the oldest fair in Canada, believe it or not, during the Year of the Veteran. I was asked to officially open the fair and before me were all the veterans in the front row wearing their uniforms. It was moments like that which prompted me.

Moreover, there was the fact that my brother served in the navy and was so proud of his time in the navy, as well as the friends I have who have served in the navy. I did not serve in the navy, but I think we must give our respect and accolades to that wonderful, proud group.

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, in light of the upcoming centennial of the Canadian Navy, the government should consider reinstating the Navy executive curl on its uniforms.

Mr. Speaker, as the proud member of Parliament for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, I am very honoured to speak in the House today to my private member's motion, Motion No. 459, which would introduce the executive curl on the navy uniforms.

I have had the pleasure to serve in the House of Commons for nearly six years now and this job has been a most rewarding experience for me. As members of Parliament in this chamber, we are always working on a wide range of issues. In my work here on Parliament Hill, I discovered what I feel is a small but important issue that I would like to correct through the private members' business process.

While the legislation may seem small and simple to some, it would mean a very great deal to many of our veterans, historians and military enthusiasts from coast to coast to coast.

I want to start by offering a preamble, a history of sorts, about how this motion came forward. When the Canadian Forces were amalgamated on February 1, 1968, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force ceased to exist as separate entities. As a result, the new amalgamated Canadian Forces moved to adopt one uniform for all three elements of the service.

The navy uniform, in particular, lost one of its very unique traditions which distinguished it from the two junior services. The navy executive curl, also known as Elliott's Eye, was removed from the sleeve of naval officers' uniforms. This left Canada as the only blue water navy in the world whose officers did not sport either an executive curl, a stylized national emblem, a nautical icon or a star in its ranking scheme.

It is important for us to realize that for members of the Canadian Forces, the navy being no exception, these small details and the traditions associated with them bring much pride and esprit de corps. Even members of the Canadian Coast Guard wear a maple leaf with their rank insignia with the original intention to set itself apart from the navy and its executive curl.

The tradition of the navy incorporating the executive curl is a long one. In 1856, the Royal Navy instituted an executive curl and when the Canadian Navy was created in 1910, it adopted the curl as well. In fact, of the 22 countries in the Commonwealth who maintain a navy, 18 of them incorporate the executive curl into their ranking system. This loss of the executive curl on the navy uniform meant a loss of some of the identity of the navy.

I believe the timing of the motion is significant and important as well. With the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Navy, what better time to right this wrong and reincorporate the executive curl into the uniform of the navy? That is why I am here today to ask the House to support my efforts. This motion is aimed to give the navy back part of its identity lost in 1968 and to support the men and women of the Canadian Forces.

I look forward to discussions here in the House in the coming weeks and I hope I can count on all members to support this small yet important and meaningful request to introduce the executive curl to the navy uniform.

On a personal note, many times in the last six years when I have assisted at the Significance of the Battle of the Atlantic that is acknowledged every year, and I speak with naval veterans at the Cornwall Navy Club or other navy clubs, there is so much pride, so much history there and they are so proud of the fact that they served in the Canadian Navy.

A member in my own family, my deceased elder brother who served seven years in the Canadian Navy, was very proud of his naval tradition. I can remember as a 10-year-old, when my brother joined the navy and came home in that wonderful uniform that sailors so proudly wore, how proud I was to walk down the street to the candy store or wherever with my big brother, the sailor. A friend of mine who also served in the navy is in assistance today.

For those veterans, those people who served this country so well and for so long, I am asking the House to endorse this motion. Our navy has a strong and proud tradition and I hope the House will recognize it.