Laurie Hawn

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. He and I sit on the defence committee. I have spent a lot of time talking to my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia as well.

This debate is a good one. It is one where we need to air a number of issues. They need to be aired honestly and with all of the facts on the table, and I think that will come out over the course of the day.

My question is with respect to post-traumatic stress syndrome. I believe my colleague is aware, and I wonder if he has some comment on the changes that the military is making today in terms of returning veterans from Afghanistan, the treatment that they get en route to coming back home that does in fact address specifically the issue of PTSD, and the follow-up they get to that potential situation after they have arrived back in Canada.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's remarks and I note her experience in the rape crisis centre. As the father of a daughter, who is long grown now, one of the things I always feared was a sexual offence against my daughter.

We talk about the rights of victims as well and the things that victims carry for years and years. Has the hon. member any personal experiences in dealing with victims, which I am sure she has, which might illustrate that point?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest to the hon. member. He is an experienced member, he is passionate and he is a good debater.

However, members opposite like to bring up revisionist history. I remind him that in 1993, yes, the Liberals inherited some things from the former Progressive Conservative government. However, he forgets to talk about 1984 when the Mulroney government inherited a literal socialist sack of hammers from Pierre Trudeau. It took nine years of Progressive Conservative government to bring in some measures, which were brought in against vigorous opposition by members across the way.

Starting in 1993, the former Liberal government used, to great effect, the GST and NAFTA to earn the balanced budgets for which they now take great credit.

I suggest that those measures and those surpluses that run to date really started in 1984 when the Progressive Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney, started fixing the sack of hammers left by Pierre Trudeau.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things I would like to point out for the member. Perhaps he is driving an electric car and does not buy gas. If that is the case, I commend him, but I fill my tank fairly regularly and the price of gas has gone down considerably in the last little while.

This government would not take any credit for that nor would it take any blame for the cost of gas increasing.

The member talked about workers and supporting workers and he mentioned the forestry industry. Is he aware that $945 million went out this week to Canadian forestry companies which will clearly support the industry, the workers and the towns across Canada that rely on the forestry industry? Does he think that is an important thing for people in those communities today?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest to my hon. colleague's impassioned speeches. She is very good at that and I know she cares about the issues deeply, but unfortunately I also think she has a tendency not to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Even though we have saved $1 billion, 37% of which was money that was not spent at all and 63% of which in total was money that was either not spent at all or spent with no return on investment, what she neglects to say is that at the same time we have increased program spending by 4.5% to deal with some of the issues that she feels are so important. I do not disagree that they are important.

I think we do know how to pay down debt. We reduced the debt by $13 billion, freeing up $650 million next year and every year thereafter for program spending, which I am sure the hon. member would have good ideas on how to spend. I am interested that she can speak for every single economist in the country from coast to coast as well.

We have looked at other examples around the world. Ireland is a good example from some years past. It bit the bullet, took some very tough measures and is now one of the strongest economies, with the kinds of social services, education benefits and so on that I am sure the hon. member and everybody here would like to see. I am wondering if she has any comments on the Irish example and how that may or may not apply to hard lessons for Canada, to things we might consider.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. friend who clearly supports the military, as I do.

He talked about veterans benefits. I am a veteran. I spent 30 years in the air force and I am proud of it. I would like some acknowledgement from my hon. colleague from the NDP about the veterans charter and the broad based comprehensive list of benefits that it will bring to veterans in Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon. colleague with interest and he had a couple of points that were worthy of further consideration.

He talked about horse trading. On January 23, Canadians got tired of the cattle and horse rustlers across the way when all they were left with was a pile of horse chips.

During the last campaign all four parties in the House professed a desire to get tough on crime. The NDP believes in cradle to grave socialism but apparently it has forgotten about cradle to grave protection from criminals. I am wondering why the NDP has now decided to go soft on its campaign commitment to get tough on crime and has left us doing it alone on this side of the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. I would comment first that it was probably the policies of Brian Mulroney, which he had the courage to bring in, and the unlimited powers of taxation that had more to do with balancing budgets than anything else. I can balance a budget if I have unlimited powers of taxation any time.

The Liberals talk about us buying something. I would suggest that the track record would show that it is not our party that buys votes. What we have been trying to do with this budget, I think successfully, and certainly Canadians seem to agree, is that we are actually buying the future with things like reducing the debt and so on.

I would ask my hon. colleague a question on a much more human level. We hear all the rhetoric back and forth all the time about people who do not care and so on. Does the hon. member honestly think that there is a single member in this House on either side, in any party, who does not care about Canadians, or that I do not care about my children, or my grandchildren, hopefully yet to come, or my parents and grandparents or my neighbours? Does the member honestly believe that people on this side do not care about the welfare of Canadians?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about history, we can go back and talk about what the Conservative government started with the legacy left by Pierre Trudeau. It is not a pretty legacy.

If the member wants to talk about cuts, these cuts were made to programs that were not delivering a return on the investment.

The government is committed to adult literacy. This is evident by the $81 million it is spending next year to address literacy. No actual literacy programs have been cut. An example of the cuts is an organization in Manitoba. It was receiving $353,000 a year in Canadian taxpayer dollars. It was delivering $10,000 a year in what could be loosely called a deliverable in terms of bursaries. That is not a very good return on investment.

The $2.5 million that was saved from administration in the Status of Women programs will be reinjected into actual programs that will actually help Canadian women. The Conservative government is about actually helping Canadians, not supporting administrative programs that create jobs for people who, frankly, should go out and get a real job.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, part of my response is we inherited a 13 year old elephant. It cannot be eaten in one sitting.

Perhaps the member for LaSalle—Émard's company still derives benefit from work that perhaps has been left undone. I cannot say what will come in the future and all the measure the government will take. I do know there will be a succession of Conservative governments over the next many years. Those governments will continue to address issues as they come up. The government will continue to address the needs of Canadians.

With respect to the billion dollars in savings that was recently announced, a lot of that money, as I am sure this member surely knows, was money that was never committed to anything in the first place. It was money that was idly sitting by and doing nothing. That money has been redirected to programs that will help all Canadians, average Canadians, everyday Canadians.

The $650 million that the government will save next year and every year after in paying down the national debt will also go to helping Canadians. This is what the Conservative government is all about and it will be all about this for many years to come.