Debates of Oct. 5th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Older Workers Income Support

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we were very clear earlier on the staggering number of studies presented right here in this House on the issue of older workers who lose their jobs following a massive lay-off. These job losses are often the result of globalization.

We can come up with all sorts of studies, but I think that we in this House can understand that people who come to see us are truly experiencing very serious problems. Also, there used to be such a program, and it was effective and successful. The Liberal government decided to discontinue it, because it was not part of its priorities. Now, after the sponsorship scandal, we know what those Liberal priorities were. But helping older workers was not one of them.

We are seeing the same thing with the Conservative government. I do not know how many studies it will need. We did all the work. Even his own party agreed with us on the need for such a program. Now, they are sitting on the fence and saying that the situation needs to be reviewed again. However, they do not need any study before deciding to spend $17.5 billion on weapons. They do not need any study when the time comes to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry, but the time has expired. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank to the member for Chambly—Borduas for bringing the motion forward, and I know that he and my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst have worked in this House for quite some years now to try to better the situation for working people across this country.

Today he brings to the House a very pertinent and relevant issue, which is the way we deal with our older workers and support them in their efforts, and the way we make sure that if they have to go back to work in order to support themselves, or perhaps to enhance a meagre pension, we look after their needs and make sure they are healthy, and, if they are out of work, that they get access to the supports and training or retraining they need to continue to contribute in the excellent way they have over their lifetimes.

I first want to say that I find it shocking and alarming that we are discussing the issues in such a way here today. The way that our economy has evolved, we are now very dependent on people who should be enjoying retirement. They are having to go back to work.

First is the fact that the economy needs them in the way it does. For the most part, they end up in low paying, dead-end jobs. Certainly that has been my experience. The fact is that we have not done anything as a society and as a government over the last number of years, when the economy has been well, to enhance the situation for our retired workers in this country.

They are the people who actually built the plants and communities that we all work in and live in now. They are the people who gave of their blood, sweat and tears, who fought in wars and came back, rolled up their sleeves and got down to work. They put those of us who are here today through school so that we could participate. They now find themselves in a situation where their pensions are not enough, neither the Canada pension nor the workplace pension that, if they were lucky enough to have one, is now beginning to pay out. It is not enough. It does not keep them in the dignified life that they should expect in a country that is as well off as Canada.

We have not found a way to make sure that absolutely everybody who works in this country has a pension above and beyond the Canada pension, a pension that will be there for them when they retire. Even with the pensions that do exist, we have not done that which needs to be done, and that is the indexing of pensions, as I have heard from so many seniors who say this needs to be done. Indexing needs to be done so that older people do not have to go back to work and be put through the grinder in the way that we have heard described here today. It needs to be done so they do not have to go on bended knee to government to look for a little help, for a little extra in order to improve their skills or whatever so they can make a few more dollars to buy a bit more food and perhaps pay the rent.

It is shameful that we have not found a way in this country to make sure that every worker has a pension that is indexed. It is probably something that we need to be looking at in the House in the future.

Also shameful are the kinds of cuts made by the previous Liberal government and which the present government partakes in as it tries to manage its financial affairs at a time when we have burgeoning surpluses in this country. Those cuts will have impacts on older workers in our country. As well, the government has cut literacy programs.

Particularly in northern Ontario in the resource based sector, we have workers who have worked for many years. They got up in the morning at five o'clock, got into the plant, made the paper or the steel or the boards that we all use to build our homes and our highways, and at the end of their career, at the age of 55 or 60, they end up having to take another job.

With the way the economy is evolving, a lot of those jobs now require a level of literacy that these workers were never able to pay attention to while working 24-7, some of them, to feed their kids and keep body and soul together. They now have found out that under the Conservative government those adult literacy programs are going to be cut.

These people find themselves living in homes that are sometimes a bit too big, yet they do not want to leave them because the alternative is unacceptable. They cannot afford the rent. They cannot afford the taxes. They cannot afford to pay for the electricity and their heat in those homes. So they have to go out and get another job.

Since the early 1990s, the government has not been able to find the wherewithal to come forward with an affordable housing strategy so that those seniors, our mothers and fathers, can move into accommodation that is more appropriate to their station in life at this time. We need housing that is more affordable for them so that they then perhaps will not have to go out and get another job at the age of 60 or 70 and have to go through the rigmarole or the wringer of--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, October 16, 2006, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar has notified me that he will be unable to move his motion during the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business on Friday, October 6, 2006.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business shall therefore be suspended, and the House will continue with the business then before it.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek the consent of the House, there would be agreement to see the clock as 5:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

National Peacekeepers' Day Act

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

moved that Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, the member for West Nova, who will assist me here today.

I think it is very timely that we have a chance to debate Bill C-287 today. The notion that peacekeeping has gone by the wayside over the years as world and regional conflicts have changed is I think a notion that is worthy of debate, a notion that must be reconsidered.

However, the reason for bringing this proposal forward is that on August 9, 1974, nine Canadian peacekeepers were killed when their plane was shot down by a surface to air missile while en route between Beirut and Damascus.

As with most commemorations, it is important to have a critical and key date to commemorate such an event. The date of August 9 has been chosen as the date when, if this bill passes, each year the flag on the Peace Tower will be at half-mast.

It would be a heritage day which would allow for Canadians, who do reflect upon these things, to remember the tremendous work that Canadian peacekeepers have done in the past and to remember those in the present who are still involved in that traditional role they continue to play on our behalf, a role they conduct with great bravery, with tremendous intelligence, with tremendous ability and, at all times, with tremendous restraint.

In my few minutes, I would like to take two tracks with this proposal. On the one side, August 9 of each year would give us a chance to honour those who have kept and still keep peace on our behalf. On the other hand, I would like it to be a day, for those who think about these things--and I hope more and more people will as time goes by--when we can reflect and decide where it is we want to go as a nation with our military.

We support our troops wherever they are in the world right now, most particularly because of what is happening in Afghanistan in that difficult region. It is fair for us to always understand as much as we can the positions we put our soldiers in when we send them to represent us around the world. It is fair to ask questions while supporting our troops.

If some believe that peacekeeping is a thing of the past, I think they are wrong. If ultimately the objective of all our work as parliamentarians all around the world is indeed to have a more peaceful world, then there will always be a role for peacekeeping.

In fact, I will quote from a document put out by the United Nations, which states, “This 'traditional' United Nations peacekeeping continues”. While it acknowledges that it may incorporate local police forces, even foreign police forces, NGOs, and different aspects of civil society in peacekeeping efforts, the nature of peacekeeping may have changed but the goal of peacekeeping has not changed. That goal is to allow for warring factions to build that space between them where they live together.

I will read for members these few sentences from another UN document:

Recent years have seen major changes in the number and nature of conflicts brought before the United Nations. The post-cold war period has been characterized by a proliferation of civil wars and other armed conflicts within States, threatening international peace and security....

The document goes on to explain how the nature of peacekeeping has changed, but there is no argument that peacekeeping is still an important part of the UN's role and is very important to Canada.

I am proud to say that a former member of Parliament from my riding, the then riding of Algoma East, Lester B. Pearson, was instrumental in the UNs' first participation as a peacekeeping agency for the world.

I also want to mention that one of my constituents, Bob Manuel from Elliot Lake, who is an active member of the legion there, not only helped the Province of Ontario pass a motion to effect such a day as peacekeepers day in Ontario, but he is also helping me with this project. I hope my colleague from West Nova and others can convince this place that it is very appropriate that we honour past and current peacekeepers, that we recognize their bravery and that we recognize the need to understand the changing nature of peacekeeping and never give up the essence of what peacekeeping is all about. Even if it is an objective for another millennia, it is something that we must remember now.

As we remember those who fought in wars past and what is the most important motto of November 11, “Lest We Forget”, by the same notion, let us not forget that there will be soldiers who will lose their lives in the future, whether it is the kind of conflict in Afghanistan, which is hardly a peacekeeping situation, or somewhere else. As the world gets better, as these regional disputes, hopefully, ameliorate over time, peacekeeping will again become the preeminent function of the world's military capacity, not the kind of thing that, sadly, we see as necessary in some parts of the world.

The fact that we even need to commemorate our peacekeepers highlights the fact that because we are, as average citizens, not in the middle of conflict, it is easy to take for granted the hard work, the sacrifice and the courage of all of our military around the world.

I had a chance to spend two weeks in Wainwright and a week in Bosnia with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry First Battalion. I had just a small sampling of military life but it gave me a chance to see a bit of what it is like to be in the military. I know members here, who have spent time with the military, know how committed our troops are. Our military understands that its role is not ever to be the aggressor. Its role is always to help provide the local capacity for education, health, sanitation, water, roads and so on.

We must not let the cloud of war take away from the appreciation that peace is ultimately what we are after and that it is peacemaking that will get us there. I am not so naive as to believe that in the near future we will get there. It is only by keeping our eye on that goal that we will get there.

We are reminded every day that this is a difficult world in which to live. We ask our soldiers, whether they are ground troops, air support or the navy, to represent us in situations that we, without being there, can never really fully understand. At the same time, we have a responsibility to understand, as much as possible, about the situations in which we send them. We owe that to them. As a Parliament and as a country, we do not want to send our troops in harm's way without there being a clear objective about what it is they are doing in relation to Canadian values. We can have this discussion all the while being in total support of our troops.

By way of summary, the bill has two principal objectives: first, to commemorate those who lost their lives on August 9, 1974, because they represent all Canadian peacekeepers who have lost their lives, of which there are several hundred; and second, which is in the same vein of honour and commemoration, we want to pay homage to peacekeepers around the world. Canada is not alone in this venture.

I know that the process or act of remembrance becomes larger and larger in this country as each year goes by. I am sure my colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, who has been around this place for a few years, may recognize, as I have, that the remembrance events in our ridings are getting bigger. I am sure my colleagues across the way have also seen that these events are getting bigger, not smaller. We should actually commend our legions and their auxiliaries for helping us to keep the act of remembrance alive.

At the same time, we could have a heritage day, not a holiday, which I want to underline, similar to Vimy Ridge day which we have celebrated every April over the last three years. Having such a day would remind us of the need to evaluate our role as a peacekeeping nation and the role we impose on our troops around the world. They never ask any questions, they just go. They trust us and we trust them and, therefore, we have a great responsibility to always ask the questions, all the while paying them the greatest and deepest respect.

I have had the sad opportunity to participate in ceremonies recognizing the loss of two soldiers from my own riding in the last two weeks. I can hardly imagine how difficult it would be to be a parent of a soldier who has lost his or her life. The only consolation is the love and caring parents feel from Canadians and the thought that their son or daughter gave up his or her life for their country and fellow man.

I thank the House for hearing me out and would ask for its support as this bill proceeds through further stages.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I need some clarification from my colleague on a couple of the comments he made. He seemed to be indicating early on that he wanted a day to recognize our peacekeepers but he also talked about the fact that he did not want to see them being aggressors. I assume he was talking about wanting us to play a more passive role and to recognize the passive role that they may play as peacekeepers rather than peacemakers.

The Royal Canadian Legion has come forward with a fairly strong resolution. It has defined peacekeepers in a much broader sense. It talks about a peacekeeper as being the definition of a veteran, which encompasses our traditional war veterans, cold war veterans, UN peacekeeping veterans, Gulf War veterans and all serving military personnel.

I would like the member to confirm that he is indeed talking about all soldiers, many who are not able to be passive in their role as peacemakers but also had to perform an aggressive role at times. I want to confirm that he is talking about all of our Canadian troops and not limiting it to just certain groups.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I deliberately did not define peacekeeper in the bill because I prefer an expansive definition of peacekeeper. I do appreciate that, in certain roles, peacekeepers have to use force.

Maybe the member misunderstood me. An aggressor is the one making war. I certainly support, when necessary, the ability of our peacekeepers to use force, but one does not need to be an aggressor to use force in keeping peace, making peace or fulfilling the mandate that military authorities have provided.

I would agree with the legion's resolution. I have not seen the wording and I would ask the member to supply me with a copy. However, I have no disagreement with the intent of the legion that peacekeepers should be as expansive as is appropriate.

Peacekeeping started with this country, with one of our prime ministers working with the UN. There are situations where one can make a distinction about peacekeeping. For example, would we call the conflict in Afghanistan a peacekeeping mission? I do not know. I deliberately did not put a definition in there so that it could be expansive and it could meet the needs of all those interested in promoting Canada's role as a peace broker in the world.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my colleague's long service to the veterans affairs committee and really to the veterans in this country. I know he has brought forward private members' legislation in the past and I want to commend him for Vimy Ridge day which he put forward in 2000.

I certainly recognize the contribution that our peacekeepers have performed for this country and, indeed, the global neighbourhood. Our peacekeepers have established themselves as some of the best in the world and therefore our peacekeepers are held in high esteem by all nations of the world. This recognition is due and it is important.

As more of a comment, when this legislation comes forward, I want the member to know that I will be standing to support it. I want to thank him for bringing this forward to the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has 20 seconds.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is just enough time to thank this member and others whose sentiments are the same on this, that we must keep our eye on the ball. If the ultimate goal of all those in leadership is more peace in the world, then what Canada has done in the past and what it will do in the future when it comes to peacekeeping is essential.

I agree with him that Canada's military has an exemplary reputation around the world.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for his desire to recognize the tens of thousands of Canadian men and women who have served our country and the cause of peace with such dedication and distinction.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I can assure all members of the House that this government, more than any other in recent history, is committed to giving every possible support to serving members of the Canadian Forces and to ensuring that our honoured veterans are treated with the dignity and respect they have earned from a grateful nation. They have brought honour to Canada and we will honour them.

Therefore, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the proposed legislation at first reading.

Since 1919, Canadians from coast to coast to coast have paused each year on November 11 to remember their brave countrymen and women who have given their all in the service of Canada. In this remembrance we remember and honour all veterans. We honour those who served in war and those who served in peace. We honour those who served in France, in Italy, in Hong Kong, in Belgium, in Korea, in the Middle East and in the Balkans. We honour those who have served in Canada helping our communities respond to and recover from natural disaster. We honour those who continue to stand for peace and freedom today in Afghanistan.

We have made no distinction in our remembrance because all who have served in the past and all who serve today have made no distinction. Their commitment to honour Canada was the same, no matter where they served, when they served or under what conditions they served. Our commitment to honour them must be the same.

At the same time, the veterans of Canada's peacekeeping missions have earned special recognition. The concept of peacekeeping was a Canadian invention. It brought our country one Nobel Prize for Peace and a share of a second when the United Nations peacekeepers were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1988.

Our peacekeepers, all peacekeepers in fact, continue to be recognized internationally on the International Day of the United Nations Peacekeepers. This day is marked in countries around the world, including Canada, each May 29. Canada also joins nations around the world in commemorating United Nations Day on October 24 each year.

Our peacekeepers are recognized by the world and they are recognized by Canada. Their contribution is celebrated and commemorated in a very prominent way not far from this very building. “Reconciliation”, the peacekeeping monument, stands in the centre of one of the busiest intersections in the national capital. It is, I believe, still the only monument of its kind in the world.

Our peacekeepers are also recognized by the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal. This award which depicts the peacekeeping monument on its obverse was created in 1997. The Peacekeeping Service Medal honours Canadians, primarily members of the Canadian Forces, and members of the Canadian police services who have served on international peacekeeping missions.

The peacekeeping service medal is in keeping with Canada's traditional expressions of honour to members of the forces for their service. It follows in a long line of such decorations from the Atlantic Star and the Korean Medal to the Dieppe Bar and the Gulf and Kuwait Medal. Tens of thousands of veterans of Canada's peacekeeping missions wear this medal with pride. It is treasured by the families of those brave Canadians who have made the supreme sacrifice in the cause of peace.

The Peacekeeping Monument and the Peacekeeping Medal recognize the special honour our peacekeepers have brought to Canada and the often very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which they have served. On many deployments there has been very little peace to keep. On others their task could perhaps be best described as peacemaking rather than peacekeeping.

We know the risks are all too real. As stated in the preamble to the bill, more than 150 Canadians have given their lives on peacekeeping missions. These missions can be exceptionally difficult and stressful. Time after time and mission after mission, Canada's peacekeepers have demonstrated exceptional discipline and professionalism.

It is not just the physical risk. Our peacekeepers have too often seen examples of man's inhumanity to man that defy imagination. The emotional wounds can be every bit as debilitating as a bullet or a bomb. I am proud to say Veterans Affairs Canada is a world leader in providing the special support and services that are keeping our veterans and helping them to recover from those wounds.

I began my remarks by talking about November 11, Remembrance Day. It is our national day of remembrance for all those who have served, and its meaning will never change. The bill proposes August 9 as a national peacekeepers' day, the day being chosen as it was the day nine Canadian peacekeepers lost their lives when their aircraft was shot down over Syria in 1974. We must never allow the great meaning and significance of November 11, Remembrance Day, to be lost, as more and more days are added to recognize specific groups involved in peacekeeping.

Further discussion on a specific day for peacekeepers, as is indicated in the bill from the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, or a day of recognizing peacekeepers, as is noted in the resolution by the Royal Canadian Legion this past June, is warranted. It is warranted because the government respects the views of Canadians on either side of the issue. We know there are those who strongly support a day a recognition for peacekeeping or peacekeepers, and we know there are those who never want to see the significance of remembrance on November 11 diminished.

We want Canadians to have an opportunity to decide. By having this discussion, through the parliamentary process, they will be given that opportunity. We are debating it here in the House and it will be debated at the committee level should the bill proceed further.

Again, I commend the hon. member for bringing the legislation forward. There were a couple of comments made that have me slightly concerned, but I am certain that, in his heart, the member opposite recognizes that peacekeeping missions are not safe missions. Peacekeeping missions are every bit as dangerous as peacemaking missions.

I have the great fortune of having in my riding some unsung heroes who have served this country very well. They were peacekeepers. Some of them were RCMP members. There have been many cases where these people have been put in situations that would be very difficult for even the longest serving soldier to experience without any ramifications. I honour those men and women who have done this service for our country and who have kept the tradition of Canada alive. Those are the kinds of people who make us what we are as a nation. Whether they be peacemakers or peacekeepers, we need in our hearts to hold what they have given us and that we take for granted very dear.

The people of Afghanistan are currently in a position where they may yet understand what it is that every day Canadians take for granted. We will give that as a gift from Canada to Afghanistan: freedom, peace, the right to religion and the right to an education. Those are all things we should mark.

Once again, I thank the opposite member for bringing this forward, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this very important issue.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to a bill introduced by a colleague of mine both in the House and at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. Bill C-287 likely stems from the campaign conducted by the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping to perpetuate the memories and deeds of fallen comrades who lost their lives in defence of peace and freedom.

Indeed, since 1945, more than 100,000 Canadians have worn the blue beret, and 114 Canadians peacekeepers have died while taking part in peacekeeping and observation missions. That represents 5% of the price paid by peacekeepers from every nation, given that 2,298 have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Why pay tribute to our peacekeepers, one might ask? I will list a few reasons.

First, they are a key component of multilateralism, a conflict resolution principle very dear to the hearts of Quebeckers. UN peacekeeping missions represent an impartial and very widely accepted way to share the burden and act effectively.

Second, they are active around the world. The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations—also known as DPKO—is currently running 18 operations on 4 continents and in 10 time zones. It employs over 90,000 people and directly influences the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world. The operations are made up of military personnel, military observers, and police personnel. DPKO operations also employ nearly 5,250 international civilian personnel, over 11,300 local civilian personnel and approximately 1,720 United Nations volunteers from 108 countries that supply military and police personnel to United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Third, their missions are usually effective. Since 1945, United Nations peacekeeping forces have conducted 60 peacekeeping missions on the ground and have negotiated 172 peace settlements that ended regional conflicts and enabled the populations of more than 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections.

In addition to peacekeeping and security, the peacekeeping forces have, with increasing frequency, been responsible for supporting political processes, building legal systems, creating law enforcement and police forces, and disarming former combatants.

Fourth, peacekeeping missions offer good value for money.

A study conducted by Oxford University economists found that international military intervention, coordinated under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, was the most effective way to minimize conflicts. The official budget for the DPKO for July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, was roughly $5 billion, or 0.5% of the world's military expenses.

This raises the question: why August 9? It was on August 9, 1974, that Canadian peacekeepers suffered the most casualties in a single day. Nine peacekeepers perished when their white plane bearing the United Nations insignia crashed on a routine flight from Beirut to Damascus. Captain Gerry Foster, the pilot of the plane, managed to avoid the first missile, but was unable to avoid the other two.

Why not choose May 29, since that was the date chosen by the United Nations to celebrate International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers? It is an international day celebrated on May 29 by all nations that take part in peacekeeping missions. Indeed, May 29 commemorates Security Council Resolution 50 on the creation of the first United Nations peacekeeping operation in 1948.

We could choose July 28 in memory of the most recent peacekeeper, Colonel Hess-von Kruedener, who was killed during an attack between Lebanon and Israel.

Keep in mind that peacekeepers are sent mainly for missions of peace, to maintain peace. These missions became increasingly popular in 1956 after a UN resolution was tabled by a colleague dear to all Liberals here, Lester B. Pearson. This resolution earned him the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize. Let us pay tribute to Mr. Pearson for his dedication to peace.

In closing, I want to confirm that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this motion in principle.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on this bill.

I will begin my comments by reminding the House of the inscription on the monument in honour of our peacekeepers in Ottawa: “Peacekeeping”. It is very short, but it says it all. This is how Canada's reputation as a peaceful country was built.

Canada's first peacekeeping mission, even before the implementation of the UN official system, occurred in 1948 in Kashmir.

Canada then took part in each of the UN peacekeeping initiatives until 1989. Over 125,000 Canadian men and women have been deployed on about 50 peacekeeping missions led by the United Nations since 1949. About 116 of them—and now several others—gave their lives to bring peace to the world.

I spent several years working with the military. Engraved in my memory is the face and the courage of each person I worked with: the rescue technician who had to jump in rough seas to pull fishermen out of the water, the young sergeant who had to leave his family to serve in Kosovo, the naval technician who was gone for months at a time on patrol in the Pacific, and many others. I always saw the same loyalty and willingness to answer the call of duty.

We cannot stress enough the importance of the work of those who serve in the armed forces, who put themselves in harm's way for Canada. There is no word to describe the magnitude of their sacrifice, nor my feeling of gratitude—which all Canadians also share, I believe—for the men and women who are ready to give their lives for a better world.

I am using my time tonight to support the bill to establish a national peacekeepers' day. I believe that it is an excellent idea to have, in addition to Remembrance Day, a day to honour Canadians who risked and sometimes even gave their lives in the quest for a durable peace, so fundamental for human beings.

The peacekeeping memorial in Ottawa reminds us of the sacrifice of Canadian peacekeepers and leaves us with an undying memory of the contribution these great Canadians made to peace and to the pride we feel about being a peaceful nation.

That sense of pride is strong and it is justified, but it must not be complacent. The Conservative government has lost its way in the pursuit of peace. It has been too quick to resort to a seek and destroy mission in southern Afghanistan and too stubborn to correct our course when our actions are working instead to the detriment of peace.

Since 1995, Canadian direct participation in UN peacekeeping efforts has greatly declined. In July 2006, Canada ranked 51st on the list of UN peacekeepers, contributing 130 peacekeepers out of a total UN deployment of over 70,000.

Since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, Canada has spent more than $4 billion on military operations in Afghanistan.

During the same period, Canada's military involvement in UN-led missions has cost a total of $215 million, the equivalent of 3% of its spending on international military operations. I would draw my colleagues' attention to the difference between $4 billion and $215 million.

While only 59 Canadian soldiers are taking part in UN missions around the world, approximately 2,300 are on duty in southern Afghanistan.

Having previously ranked among the top 10, Canada now ranks fiftieth among the 95 countries providing military personnel for UN missions.

Some people wonder if peacekeeping is still an appropriate tool to confront modern conflict. The tragedy that is unfolding in Darfur is an example of the role peacekeeping can and should play by placing a force in the middle to protect a vulnerable civilian population and combat those who would attack them.

Nearly all lasting solutions to modern day wars have come through negotiated peace settlements and with the help of middlemen to create a space between warring factions and assist them in keeping the peace. Just as the nature of peacekeeping has changed since the days of Lester Pearson, so too has the nature of armed conflict. Today's protracted civil conflicts require conflict resolution strategies that include tangible negotiated peace processes.

Civil conflicts in Angola, Sierra Leone, El Salvador and Northern Ireland have required many years and several failed peace agreements to isolate legitimate political issues and actors from illegitimate criminal ones. A viable peace alternative, not just building schools, but engaging in peace negotiation wins the hearts and minds of everyone toward peace by offering hope. Those who would violate that process are rightly identified as illegitimate actors in the peace process isolated from the majority who seek peace and then rooted out militarily.

I have no illusions about the danger inherent in peacekeeping missions. I know that despite its proud peacekeeping tradition, Canada must adapt to the reality of modern conflict, but I also know that we must not follow the American example and rush headlong into a senseless conflict. We have to understand how modern conflict works and how to reach a fair and lasting solution. To that end, we have to be staunch defenders and advocates of peace and never hesitate to take the side of peace, but we must also remain impartial, understand the grievances of the parties involved in the conflict and advocate a peaceful resolution, isolate the parties with no right to intervene and, once all these conditions are in place, be prepared to use military means to achieve peace.

I believe in peace, and I also believe that in certain extraordinary circumstances, it might be necessary to fight for peace. However, I am firmly convinced that there are many methods besides force to achieve peace.

I do not think we are exploring all the other peaceful solutions as much as we should, but I do know that every time fighting has been necessary, the men and women of our Canadian Forces have always answered their government's call.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to second the bill introduced by the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

We know that he had the support of the hon. member for Sudbury last week and that the bill should have come up for second reading at that time. However, the hon. member had to go back to his riding to be at the funeral service of two soldiers who had fallen in the line of duty in Afghanistan. Our colleague made the right choice and went to the funerals with the families in his riding.

I thank the member for Sudbury who exchanged turns with the hon. member last week. Thus, the House can proceed to the study of the bill.

I am very happy to see all political parties support the bill and support our troops since the bill aims at designating a National Peacekeepers' Day.

Sometimes, we may have a rather romantic vision of peacekeepers' life because we think they spend their time on the front line, in a big space between two armies five to ten kilometres apart where they can take walks and are never fired at. As I will show later in my speech, I must say that that has not always been the case.

I spoke with Mr. Herb Boudreau, a retired soldier who was in Cyprus, I believe, where he was involved in some very difficult situations. He often found himself in these frightening situations.

I will not list all of the reasons that prompt us to support the resolution. I believe the members have already done a good job. I would like to point out a few facts, however.

On August 9, 1974 nine Canadian peacekeepers serving with the United Nations emergency force in Egypt and Israel were shot down by a Syrian air defence missile while preparing to land at Damascus, Syria on a regular re-supply mission. This represented the greatest single loss of Canadian life on a single peacekeeping mission and that is why the date is selected in this bill.

In recognizing the nine fallen peacekeepers, we pay tribute to the lives of over 100 Canadian peacekeepers who have been killed serving the international community in this capacity.

Peacekeeping is a dynamic concept that responds to changes in the international environment in order to create security for those affected by conflict. Traditionally, peacekeeping took place between two states in order to monitor a peace treaty upon which all parties had agreed. These early missions were traditionally military in nature.

The role of peacekeeping has expanded to include the delivery of humanitarian aid, supervision of elections, repatriation of refugees, disarming of warring factions, and the clearing of landmines.

Another increasingly important aspect of peacekeeping is support for stable government and human rights, including the organization of electoral systems and the training of police forces and the judiciary.

Canada peace support efforts now include the RCMP and its provincial and municipal policing partners, Elections Canada and Correctional Service Canada. Civilian experts involved in peace support operations include: regional and municipal administrations, judges, prosecutors, the media, health, tax and social policy advisors, child protection experts, facilitators and mediators, and people who manage basic infrastructure such as sewage treatment plants and railways.

It can be argued that the major threat to the international community is no longer from nation states disputing territory or trying to keep the balance of power. Rather, we are confronted by a spectrum of armed groups representing different value systems that seek power and influence.

While these groups may, in some cases, be funded by nation states, they also have access to private and commercial sources of funding. They are not signatories to the legal conventions we have relied on. They make no distinctions between civilians and combatants. Terror is their preferred weapon and they rarely engage in open combat. These non-state actors are media savvy and use the Internet skilfully to convey their messages.

The result is a blurring of lines, both in reality and in our understanding. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, activities within a city of thousands or millions in conflict become a dynamic and complex mosaic of combat, stability and security, and humanitarians operations.

There is no indication that conflict will return to the rather neat and tidy affairs of the past governed by agreed to protocols and rules. Changes in conflict and its methods compel us to think about how we respond to and manage conflict.

We need public and informed debate about the respective roles of military and humanitarians, and to determine how both can function effectively in a rapidly changing international environment. It is a conversation that needs to include all Canadians.

Next month marks the 50th anniversary of the day that Lester B. Pearson, secretary of state for external affairs and later prime minister, proposed a resolution for the development of an international peace force to Suez under the United Nations. Lester B. Pearson stated:

We need action not only to end the fighting but to make the peace...My own government would be glad to recommend Canadian participation in such a United Nations force, a truly international peace and police force.

Even at that time there was a blurring of lines between the blue beret and the steel helmet.

Pearson believed that Canada had a responsibility and a vital interest in creating peace and security in countries ravaged by war. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize, as we heard, in 1957.

Today, more than 100,000 individuals from more than 100 countries are engaged in more than 30 peace operations around the world.

I would like to talk a bit about the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre because I share Lester B. Pearson with the member who is sponsoring this bill. Mr. Pearson was from his riding, but his heritage was in my riding also.

Over the past 50 years, Canada has cultivated a formidable reputation for excellence in peacekeeping. Within that reputation, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre is recognized as a leader in multidisciplinary peace operations research, education and training. Since its inception, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre has trained over 6,100 people from 147 countries, including courses delivered in over 30 countries in English, French and Spanish.

A not for profit and non-governmental organization, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was established in 1994 by the Government of Canada and works in partnership with a range of domestic and international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Reflecting the reality of working in a complex mission and field environment, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre faculty and participants come from a variety of civilian, military and police backgrounds. Applying problem-based learning and adult learning techniques, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre is renowned for the quality and diversity of its courses for civilian, police and military participants.

Research ensures that the centre's training materials are relevant and up to date, and its close working relationship with funder agencies and partners ensure that the centre's learning materials offer a balance of relevant theory and practice.

Peacekeeping, and the environment in which it is conducted, has evolved significantly since the first peacekeeping mission some 50 years ago. In this changing environment, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre's contribution to preparing military, police and civilians to develop and deliver effective peace operations worldwide is more important than ever.

In closing, I am very pleased to support the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill intended to increase awareness among Canadians about our peacekeepers and to teach them more about the multitudes of situations they face. It is not always easy. Sometimes, we must make the peace that we would rather be keeping.

In order to have infrastructures, sacrifices must be made and courage is needed. For this reason, people from across the country—like those of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre—group together the officers and all sectors of our society, governments at all levels, in order to meet the requirements and expectations of all countries concerning Canada.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, like all members of this House, and like all Canadians I hold thousands of Canadian men and women who serve both Canada and the world in the cause of peace in the highest esteem.

Consequently, I will be joining the member in supporting our peacekeepers by voting in favour of Bill C-287, so that it can move on to committee.

I will confess that I considered for some time whether the declaration of a national day was the appropriate means to express our respect and endless gratitude for the sacrifice of these brave and dedicated men and women.

My concern was that such a declaration might somehow take away from Canada's long tradition of remembrance. We have for almost 90 years set aside November 11 as our national day of thanks to the more than 116,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders who have given their lives in defence of our freedom. Even before Confederation, Newfoundlanders were committed to democracy as they are now.

We honour and thank them all on that day because we do not wish to distinguish the sacrifice of one from another. We cannot make that distinction because it does not exist. Each one made the ultimate sacrifice and there is none greater. The recognition of that simple profound fact, that one can do no more than to give one's life for one's country, is the very essence of our remembrance.

It is true however as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has pointed out, that for a great many Canadians, probably a majority of Canadians, Remembrance Day stirs particularly fond memories. We think of the horrors of the trenches of the first world war, the great battles of the second world war, and the bitter fighting in Korea. These powerful memories make all the more powerful the tremendous place these great conflicts occupy in world history.

It is for this reason that the excellent education and awareness programs offered by Veterans Affairs Canada include special modules designed to increase the understanding by Canadians of the significant contribution that Canada's peacekeepers have made and, in fact, continue to do today.

Canada's new Veterans Charter is founded on that same belief. It recognizes that today's veterans have earned the same high standard of service from Canada that their parents and grandparents earned. The new Veterans Charter recognizes that every member of the forces, no matter where or when they wear the uniform, are accepting the same risk.

They know that at any time they may be asked to put their lives and their futures on the line, in peacekeeping, peacemaking or combat services, or in times of emergency at home. There is no question that the risks and stresses may differ from one mission to another. Our peacekeepers must deal with unpredictable situations, where it may be difficult to know who is a friend and who is an enemy.

We recognize that on one of the days that we set aside we pay homage to all those who have died in the service of our country, but the question is, is it enough?

Our peacekeepers are honoured each year on the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers in May. Are Canada's peacekeepers like the prophets without sufficient honour in their own land? The question is--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex will have six minutes when Bill C-287 is taken up again.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Firearms Centre reports that 85% of spousal homicides occur in private homes, and a shocking 71% of the firearms used in spousal homicides are in fact long guns. In light of these horrifying statistics, I asked the public safety minister last June why the Conservative government was planning to remove all long guns from the firearms registry.

Since then, we witnessed the tragic events of September 13, when Kimveer Gill went on a rampage at Dawson College in Montreal. At the end of the day, 18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa was dead and 20 other people suffered severe injuries. Furthermore, the lives of all students and staff at Dawson College changed forever.

Kimveer Gill was armed with a nine millimetre Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine, a rifle classified as a semi-automatic weapon, or in simpler terms, a long gun. He also carried a .45 calibre handgun and a shotgun.

While it is true that all of these weapons were acquired by Gill according to the rules, Canadians are asking why are the Conservatives walking in the opposite direction to public opinion and why are they planning to deregister all long guns?

The intelligent thing to do would be to add all semi-automatic rifles and handguns to the prohibited list. Instead, the Conservatives are turning a blind eye and are planning to deregister an estimated seven million rifles in Canada. Seven million rifles. That is seven million more firearms that will be easier for people like Kimveer Gill to obtain. It is a disgrace. It is a national disgrace.

The Prime Minister claims that the firearms registry failed to prevent this tragedy. This is not true. The obvious solution is to tighten the rules, add other categories of long guns to the registry and make tougher legislation to prevent people like Kimveer Gill from obtaining these particular weapons in the first place.

I know my hon. friend on the government side of the House will try to make some sort of argument that the firearms registry does not work and that it is too costly and bureaucratic. That is not true. In terms of cost, the real question is, how much value does one place on human life?

In terms of working, in the days that followed the shootings at Dawson College, Quebec police launched an investigation into a 14-year-old boy who posted death threats on the very same website that Kimveer Gill used. Police checked the gun registry, discovered that his father had firearms in the house and the guns were quickly removed. This is how frontline police officers use the firearms registry as a tool to protect Canadians from similar tragedies.

Statistics clearly show that the number of firearms homicides dropped significantly in Canada since the gun registry was put in place in 1995. Therefore, I would like to ask the members opposite to tell the House why the Conservatives are making it easier for criminals to obtain seven million long guns, and how will the availability of these dangerous weapons protect Canadians?

Further, I would like to know if the Conservatives plan to ban the type of weapon that Kimveer Gill used to kill Anastasia De Sousa. I would also like to know if the members would be willing to meet with the students and staff of Dawson College and explain to them how their new policy will make Canada a safer place in which to live.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Don Valley East for giving me the opportunity to rise in the House today and answer her questions. The question put forward concerns the firearms program.

I would like to give her and Canadians some statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, which are quite interesting. In actual fact, there are 6,455,026 registered long guns in the country. Those are already owned by Canadians. Total homicides with long guns known to be registered in 2003, the first year the gun registry was fully operational, were two. The vast majority of homicides in Canada are committed with non-registered, illegal handguns.

In her question, the hon. member references the use of long guns in spousal homicides. This government sees any incident of spousal homicide as a tragic loss, and we place the highest priority on the prevention of domestic abuse.

According to Statistics Canada's “Family Violence in Canada, a Statistical Profile, 2004”, the use of long guns has decreased notably over the last 30 years, while the use of handguns is increasing. No reliable statistics demonstrate the decreases in long gun homicides are associated with the long gun registry. In fact, these trends began long before registration became mandatory in 2003.

In 2003, the first year that the long gun registry was fully operational, only 2 of 161 firearms-related homicides were committed with long guns known to be registered, despite the fact that there are nearly 6.5 million legal non-restricted long guns in Canada.

Regrettably, illegal handguns are the preferred weapon of choice for criminals. Again, in 2003, 101 of 161 homicides in Canada were committed with illegal non-registered handguns or with handguns that were simply not recovered. The increase in the use of handguns demonstrates the need to ensure that those who should not have access to guns do not obtain them, rather than wasting valuable resources on processes that only serve to burden law-abiding Canadians with unnecessary paperwork.

More than half of those accused of domestic homicide between 1997 and 2003 had histories of criminal violence. Seventeen per cent of male accused were suspected of suffering from a mental disorder. These individuals, clearly, should not be in possession of firearms. The government will be moving forward shortly with a series of additional measures designed to strengthen our licensing system. This is where we must focus our efforts. Instead of wasting resources on the failed effort to count and track every hunting rifle and shotgun in the country, we will focus those resources on effective front end screening and on keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not possess them.

Under the proposed changes to the Firearms Act, Canadians will still have to have a valid firearms license, will still be required to go through police background checks, and will require safety training in order to acquire or possess firearms and to acquire ammunition. The handgun registry will remain, as will the ban on all prohibited firearms. Gun owners will be required to continue to obey regulations concerning the safe storage and transport of firearms. All transactions involving firearms will be verified and recorded, ensuring that those purchasing firearms have a valid licence and preventing those with histories of criminal violence or mental disorder from purchasing firearms.

We made a promise to Canadians during the election and we are delivering on that promise. Although there has been some opposition, the resounding feedback from Canadians that we have received is in favour of our approach. We believe there are more effective ways to fight gun crime than the registration of long guns.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first targets of Kimveer Gill at Dawson College was 18 year old Hayder Kadhim. Mr. Kadhim was shot in the head, in the neck and in one of his legs. Fortunately, Mr. Kidhim survived and is now slowly recovering.

This young man has made a simple request. Mr. Kadhim would like to meet with the Prime Minister and debate the Conservative plan to eliminate the gun registry and make it easier to obtain long guns. So far the Prime Minister has refused to meet Mr. Kadhim. What is the Prime Minister afraid of?

Will the hon. member stand in the House tonight and promise to at least ask the Prime Minister to grant Mr. Kadhim's request for a meeting?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Government of Canada is committed to effective firearms control that targets criminals while maintaining the highest standards of public safety. There is no reliable evidence indicating that registration has reduced crime committed with long guns.

According to the Auditor General, data in the firearms registry is often unreliable. Paragraph 4.61 of the Auditor General's report from this past May notes that at least 9% to 12% of firearm registration certificates contained inaccurate information. This limits the reliability of the registry for police.

Supporters of the registry often claim that the police use the registry 6,700 times a day, but this is somewhat misleading. Whenever police officers in certain jurisdictions access the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, for any reason, such as a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with the Canadian Firearms Registry On-line, whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto police services, the Vancouver police services and the B.C. RCMP, which accounts for nearly 12,000 police officers.

In 2006 the Auditor General estimated the registry has now cost over $1 billion. Two Library of Parliament studies further estimate that the enforcement and compliance costs are substantial, running into hundreds of millions of dollars.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.)