Laurie Hawn

[Cadet Instructor Cadre, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Canadian Forces Cadet Instructor Cadre and its celebration of 100 years of service.

In its early days, the Cadet Instructor Cadre was mostly made up of male public school teachers who led their students through drill exercises and physical training at a number of schools across Canada. Since then, this group has grown into one of the most diverse branches of the Canada Forces and its officers represent the full spectrum of Canadian society.

Today, approximately 7,500 cadet instructors lead over 58,000 of Canada's youth in more than 1,100 communities across Canada. They are our friends, our family and our neighbours.

Cadet instructors are part-time members of the Canadian Forces who give their time and energy as they spend their weekends, evenings and summers with our youth.

The Cadet Instructor Cadre has much to be proud of. On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank this exceptional group for their hard work and dedication.

I encourage all hon. members to participate and support their local units and join me in recognizing the Cadet Instructor Cadre as it celebrates 100 years of service. Here is to the next 100.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment to make with respect to my hon. colleague's comments. Natural health products, NHPs, are not included in the bill, but there is still a fear out there from some folks for whatever reason. My understanding of the purpose of the amendment is to make it crystal clear that that is not the case.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on the question from the member for Yukon.

I want it to be perfectly clear to the hon. member from the NDP that natural health products are not part of Bill C-6. Is that his understanding? That is the fact.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 94 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened all day to debate on both sides of the House. One thing that keeps coming out is the fact that people are confusing gun control with the long gun registry. All that we are debating today, I think, is whether we maintain the long gun registry, not gun control.

There has been gun control in Canada since 1933 for handguns, and 1947 for long guns. It is not making gun ownership any easier at all. If somebody goes to buy a gun, the person has to be registered. It is not the long gun that is causing the problem, it is the person.

We have heard from the opposition benches all this rhetoric that is off topic, accusing us of doing things that we have never said we were going to do and have no intention of doing. I realize it makes good fodder for them, but it is misleading. It is not attacking the issue that we are supposed to be debating today, and I really wish the opposition would stick to what the debate is supposed to be about, which is the long gun registry, nothing else.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I accept that and I will be respectful. I would ask the hon. member to be respectful about what the debate is all about.

The debate is about a motion that talks about the long gun registry, not some fanciful thing that the hon. member believes the government is trying to promote in the House. When we talk about impugning motives, he is suggesting that the government is trying to take actions that are not government policy. I would simply ask the member to stick to what we are debating today and not introduce things that are simply not true.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, with respect, I would ask you to check, because the word “disingenuous” is acceptable. The word “dishonest” is not acceptable. The word “misleading” is acceptable. The words “deliberately misleading” are not acceptable. I said “disingenuous” and “misleading”. I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you reconsider that and check the Standing Orders.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we just listened to a very disingenuous and misleading speech by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering. He talked about when his party left office.

When his party left office, the Canadian Police Association came to the Hill with a long list of legislative changes that they wanted to see made in the name of public safety. Guess what? Members of the Canadian Police Association are on the Hill this week and that list of legislative changes they wanted to see made are not on their wish list any more because we have actually done something about them.

I want to talk about the misleading and disingenuous comments of the hon. member. The motion today is about Bill C-68--