George Proud

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today. I congratulate my hon. colleague for Saanich-Gulf Islands for bringing forward this motion. Although I do not support the motion, I thank him for bringing it forward. We have heard a lot of debate here on the floor of the House today which I believe is healthy. It is what parliamentarians have to do in order to get our points of view across to the government so it can see what parliamentarians are thinking, especially on behalf of their constituents.

Canadians are proud of our armed forces and of the work these forces have done both at home and around the world. I believe that most people agree with this point of view.

Canada was instrumental in the creation of NATO in 1949 and maintained stationed forces in Europe for over 40 years. Our contribution to alliance security was highly valued. Even among the collection of first rate militaries, Canadian personnel are among the very best.

Today we no longer station forces in Europe, but our role in the alliance remains a very active one. Canada continues to

maintain a full slate of NATO commitments and we are at the forefront of working for change within the alliance.

We see the alliance as a valuable form of insurance, both in terms of providing for the defence of its member states and in terms of giving the North Atlantic communities a way to reach out to their former adversaries in their quest for security in the new Europe. Our personnel, respected for their professionalism and good sense, are playing an active role in this process as well.

NATO does not represent the only venue in which Canadians are working for peace and security. Of course, the most visible contribution our personnel are making to European security today is through the United Nations. I am referring to, as has been referred to many times today, the leading role we have played and continue to play in the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia.

Canadian personnel are no strangers to UN operations. Since 1949 we have contributed thousands of personnel in support of the United Nations. They have served in roles as diverse as monitoring ceasefires on the Indo-Pakistani border to reversing aggression in Korea and in the gulf.

There are currently over 3,000 Canadian personnel deployed in peacekeeping and related missions. However, it is not only the scale but the nature of involvement that is changing. In the past our participation was limited predominantly to the type of operation undertaken in Cyprus or the Middle East entailing the positioning of the impartial forces between the parties to a ceasefire as these parties conducted negotiations toward a political settlement.

Today the operations are more ambitious and the range of military activity is much wider and potentially more risky. As part of missions which are designed to restore order between and sometimes within states, our personnel have been asked to enforce economic sanctions or arms embargoes, create secure conditions for the delivery of aid, deny the use of airspace through which hostile forces could prosecute military campaigns or attack civilian populations in so-called no fly zones, and to protect civilian populations and refugees in safe areas.

As these operations have evolved, there have been mistakes along the way. Unfortunately we must expect that there probably will be more. Nevertheless, the alternatives to doing the difficult and dangerous work for peace and stability are unacceptable. The result would be a violent, lawless and chaotic world which would be inimical to Canadian values and interests. The international community, Canada included, may be on a learning curve, but there really is no alternative to putting our best foot forward come what may.

It is in this light that the experience of the Canadian forces in Somalia ought to be seen. No one regards the tragic events of two years ago with anything other than the utmost concern. I would like to take a few minutes to review the history of the Somalia operation and Canada's participation in it and to remind the House and Canadians that there were aspects of that operation, which have been mentioned here before today, which were not only well-motivated but quite successful.

For most Canadians, prior to our involvement with the UN effort, Somalia was merely a faraway country perennially in the grips of civil war, famine, or both. All of that changed in December 1992.

The United Nations finally moved to act on a scale much larger than had previously been planned. It authorized a united task force, UNITAF, to restore order and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia. The Canadian component of a much smaller UN operation in Somalia, the Canadian airborne regiment, was augmented and integrated into this larger effort as the Canadian airborne regiment battle group.

The entire Canadian contribution to UNITAF, which included air and maritime support, including the support ship HMCS Preserver , was known as the Canadian joint force group and began to deploy to Somalia on December 14, 1992. The Canadian contingent was given a large humanitarian relief sector in the northern region of the country.

The operating conditions could only be described as extreme: temperatures of over 40 degrees, the constant threat of disease, very little infrastructure, and the constant challenge of operating in an environment where our personnel encountered hostility from the very people they were trying to help. Nevertheless, the Canadian contingent quickly secured its area of responsibility and turned its attention to the humanitarian aspects of the operation.

The efforts of our personnel in this regard were truly remarkable as they helped to deliver aid, assist medical teams and hospitals, rebuild infrastructure; repair and reopen schools, and train the local population, including children, to recognize land mines. Unfortunately, much of this excellent work, truly path breaking work in the realm of UN operations, risks going unnoticed in the light of the criminal activities of a few.

Upon the discovery of the torture and death of a Somali youth at the hands of a small group of Canadian forces personnel, the Canadian forces convened a series of courts martial. These trials have resulted in the courts martial of nine soldiers.

The completion of the courts martial paves the way for a comprehensive civilian inquiry into the entire Somalia affair. The government has decided to conduct the inquiry under the terms of the inquiries act. The advantage of this approach is that

the Inquiries Act allows the commission to compel the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses.

The government has named three prominent Canadians of different backgrounds and skills to conduct the inquiry. The commission has the authority to investigate and report on a wide range of issues surrounding the Somalia operation, including the chain of command, leadership and discipline. The terms of reference cover three periods of the operation.

The first is predeployment. Here the commission can examine such issues as the state of discipline within the airborne regiment, its suitability for the Somalia operation and the adequacy of the screening and selection process for the Somalia deployment.

The second is the period spent in theatre. In examining this phase of the operation the commissioners will probe such issues as the missions and tasks of the Canadian joint task force, the treatment of detainees and the allegations of a cover-up and the destruction of evidence.

On post deployment, in examining this final phase of the operation the commissioners will investigate the manner in which authorities within the Department of National Defence and the chain of command of the Canadian forces responded to the full range of problems encountered in the Somalia deployment. The commission is expected to report in December and make recommendations to the government. More important, it will finally lay to rest a difficult chapter in the otherwise proud history of the Canadian military.

The government is committed to moving expeditiously to get to the bottom of the Somalia affair. Whatever we may learn as part of the commission's proceedings should not obscure the value of the Canadian forces or the confidence the government has in their ability to carry out their roles.

The Canadian forces are known worldwide for their professionalism and effectiveness. We all know they are in great demand all over the world. They are in demand for UN missions in NATO and working with their American counterparts in the contacts they forge with other countries.

More important, the unique aspects of the military vocation aside, they are recognized to all of us as Canadians. They reflect our values, our history and our culture. They are not only a unique institution, they are a unique Canadian institution.

They will continue to enjoy the confidence and the support of Canadians as they continue to protect our values and interests both at home and abroad.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, some of the member's statements are right about the great history the regiment has had and there is no doubt about it.

During the consultations we had last year from April through to the end of October on the defence review I suggested, as had other members as we talked about Canada's shrinking budgets or shrinking military, that it was possible to do other things. We do not have a huge sealift or airlift capability. We suggested that maybe we could use the airborne regiment to go into certain areas. They tell us they do not like to use that in peacekeeping operations.

I asked them why we needed an airborne regiment at this time. If we ever need one there are a lot of people out there who are very capable and who would come back in and form a regiment.

If that is the case, why do we need one?

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to the last question first, my answer is definitely not. I will not opt out. I am not ashamed of the pension plan. We changed the pension plan as we said we would do. We even went further than that. I will defend our pension plan and salary as MPs anywhere in Canada. I am not afraid to do that.

As far as justifying the workforce adjustment directive, the government negotiated with the unions and 15 of the 16 unions agreed to it. It came to a point where it had to be done and we took the attitude that we would do it. We did it and we are going to look after it in the most humane way possible.

We built the social programs and we are not dismantling them. I have said it over and over again. The Prime Minister has said that the costs of health care can be cut. That is what I said in my speech. We have to do things smarter and we will do it. We built the social programs; we will maintain the social programs. The social programs will be as good in 10 years time as they were 10 years ago as long as we form the government.

I have no qualms about any of the questions the hon. member asked. We have lived up to our commitments. Commitments were made and commitments were kept and we will continue to do so.

I have no problem in defending unemployment insurance. Not one change has occurred to the unemployment insurance system as yet. That is what I said. Nothing has changed. Some changes will be made. The minister has travelled the country.

In my speech I was talking about seasonal workers. Seasonal workers are not the problem; it is seasonal work. When we reach the point where such people can work 12 months of the year we will not need unemployment insurance for them. Until that happens, with them in agriculture, fishery and tourism we need to have some kind of compensation for them. I will be the one to make sure, to the best of my ability, that it remains for them.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.

Contrary to what we hear flowing back and forth across the floor, it is an honour for me to participate in the budget debate on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Hillsborough. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on such a finely crafted budget. In my years in this House and in my years in the house of

another jurisdiction I can honestly say that this is one of the best budgets I have witnessed.

The budget is about commitments made and commitments kept. During the election we campaigned on a platform of creating opportunity. We asked Canadians to put their trust in us and we put our trust in them to get things moving in the right direction.

We promised to create jobs for Canadians and we have. As has been talked about many times in the last number of weeks, in the past year over 400,000 jobs were created across the country. We promised stable inflation and we have the lowest inflation in the industrialized world. Our exports are at an all time high and the level of business confidence in the Canadian economy is at its highest point since 1979.

The budget moved us further down the road to even more opportunity in the future. As the Minister of Finance has stated, the budget breaks the back of the deficit. The government will reach its deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the next fiscal year. Once we have reached that point the government will move to reduce the deficit even further. We will accomplish our goals without punishing the vulnerable.

Some people out there would say and have said that it is just a Tory budget tied up in red ribbons. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have gone about the budgeting process reasonably. Instead of across the board cuts as was the case with the previous government, we have examined every program and every activity of the federal government.

Yes, we can do more. The Minister of Finance chose a scalpel over a meat cleaver in making the cuts. In departments such as in the Department of Transport where the need for their services have declined, the minister has made larger cuts. The commercialization of airports will create new opportunities in my area for businesses to export their goods and promote better tourism marketing.

In the Department of Veterans Affairs the minister made considerably smaller cuts. I know that the Secretary of State for Veterans was keen in protecting services for veterans across the country. As a result few jobs will be lost at departmental headquarters in Charlottetown. This is also something the people of the riding of Hillsborough really appreciate.

Seasonal workers will be happy to know that there will be no changes to the unemployment insurance system. There have been no changes to eligibility criteria or the length of time one can collect benefits. The Minister of Human Resources Development will continue to examine the operation of the program, to streamline the operations, and to find better ways to help recipients of unemployment insurance.

The budget was also a fine example of sharing the burden of deficit control. For the second year in a row the government has refused to increase personal income taxes.

Most Canadians have realized for quite some time that wealthy Canadians enjoy special treatment come tax time. On budget day the Minister of Finance moved a long way toward stopping special treatment by eliminating exemptions for family trusts.

A couple of years ago the former government extended a tax holiday called the family trust exemption. Previously some of the wealthiest families in the country could hide their money away from the tax person by saying it was for their children and grandchildren. Because these family trusts have been exempted for so long it is difficult to estimate how much money is involved. Estimates have ranged from hundreds of millions to a couple of billion dollars that the tax people cannot reach. This special privilege was unacceptable and I am glad to see it gone.

The Minister of Finance placed a special tax on banks that had record profits in the last year. As well the government will be leaning on banks to make sure more capital is available to small and medium size businesses. The government will hold banks accountable on their performance in helping the Canadian economy grow and provide more jobs.

In the budget there is an increase in the taxes on large corporations. This was done because we realized that ordinary taxpayers were already paying their fair share. The budget spreads the burden more evenly.

The government has taken the position that we cannot do it all. Nor should we. It is the job of government to ensure that there is a level playing field for all Canadians to prosper. It is not the duty of government to run businesses the private sector can run better. That is why we are selling, for instance, our remaining shares in Petro-Canada and selling Canadian National Railway. On the list being examined for sale is the Canada Communications Group that has come under fire from small businesses across the country.

In the future we will be looking not only at what government does but why government does it. If we cannot find a legitimate answer then we should stop it. This is about more than smaller government even though government will be smaller. It is also about smarter government.

We must remember the Liberals created Canada's social programs and safety net. While we will be funding those programs in different ways we will insist that certain national standards apply. All aspects of the Canada Health Act will continue to be enforced, especially universality and accessibility. Of that there can be no doubt in the minds of Canadians.

We are well on our way to both fiscal sanity and healthy government. The naysayers and the special interest groups will try to convince Canadians that we have cut too much. Other people will say that we have not cut enough and that we should sacrifice our social programs in the interest of deficit elimination. Neither opinion reflects the needs and the desires of Canadians. The budget is about fairness, balance and a sense of the future.

As I said earlier, there is more we can do. I have mentioned this at different meetings with the Minister of Finance. There are more ways to find waste and other excesses in government. Every stone must be turned to find waste. Public servants out there are willing to talk about it and to tell us but they must be protected.

As Liberals we will continue on our course of creating opportunity for Canadians.

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in favour of the bill put forward by my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands.

We hear everyone praising our peacekeepers. We talk about our peacekeepers everywhere we go. It is a Canadian tradition. Every high school student in Canada is taught that the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson invented peacekeeping in the 1950s to defuse the Suez Canal crisis. Yet it seems to me at times that we certainly as governments over the last number of years have been ashamed of that fact. We have never seen fit to give a medal to our own Canadian peacekeepers, as was mentioned so eloquently a moment ago by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

I have listened to the debate over the last five years in the House and when we brought the matter before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. There has to be a better way of recognizing our military people. Canadians have served in practically every peacekeeping effort since the Suez crisis from Cyprus to Cambodia and from Pakistan to the Israeli withdrawal from Egypt.

Our peacekeepers have served Canada and the United Nations well. They have brought honour to our country and they should be appropriately recognized. For a country with our tradition it is only fitting that a government strike a volunteer service medal for those Canadians who served in peacekeeping operations.

We are not talking about special treatment of privileges. We are talking about honour. Right now, as has been mentioned many times here, our peacekeepers receive a medal from the United Nations for their service. However they do not receive a medal from their own country. That is a shame.

Some people have suggested that such a move is unprecedented. That is not so. As has been said today, the volunteers in Korea have received a Canadian medal to commemorate their service to peace. Granted, they waited 40 years and probably would never have received it except that we committed troops at the time of the gulf war in 1991. At that time it was deemed to be a special area and a medal would be struck for that. It was pretty hard for the government not to come through with a medal for the Canadian people who served in Korea.

We tend to play down this business of giving medals to our troops who serve in various areas. Maybe that has some merit at times. There are countries that some people think give too many medals. I have come to know a lot of the people who participated in peacekeeping efforts around the world in the last number of years. We have come into our own as a country. We have served in every conflict in this century. I believe the time has come to change the rules if that is what we have to do.

No one has said anything about the royal prerogative, but maybe it is time that we took a look at the way things are done. We are great people in the House of all political parties for saying it is time for change. I found last summer as we travelled the country looking at our defence policy that sometimes it was hard to change things. Sometimes it is hard to change minds, even though we all go in with grandiose plans for making things work differently.

It would be a shame if we fail to provide recognition of our peacekeeping veterans, the same recognition we gave to people who served in the Korean war and the first and second world wars. I do not think these people should have to wait 40 and 50 years for the government to give them credit where credit is due.

Canada is a country that is called on. We have more missions going now than we have had for many years. We are always ready to do our part even with dwindling resources and not the best equipment that our people should have out there. We do not hear them complain about it. We see letters from organizations across the country urging us to support the bill that we bring forward a peacekeeping medal and clasp for our peacekeepers.

We have not gone far enough in this age. We talked about it, as I said, in 1990 in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Perhaps, as has been suggested, it should lie with this committee to bring forth a way of doing it without having the wrath of the government against us or the wrath of those in Parliament who do not believe these things are noble or necessary.

We should be ashamed of ourselves as governments and as parliaments for not having done something sooner. The gulf war had to come along before the Korean veterans were recognized with their own distinctive Canadian medal. I see nothing wrong with the soldiers getting the United Nations medal and one from our own country.

At the end of the day I hope there is some resolve that we can send the matter to committee and have some recommendations come forward. I do not believe for a moment we are doing anything wrong by recommending that we give this medal to our peacekeepers. It would be a great day in our country if we could do that. We can sit here and talk about all the rules to stop this legislation. They are there, but I do not see why we cannot come up with some way to change them and make this medal a reality.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the North Atlantic Assembly annual session which was held in Washington, D.C., from October 14 to 18, 1994.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has come under attack from members of the Reform Party as being nothing more than a boondoggle. Nothing could be further from the truth.

ACOA provides valuable support to small business communities in places like Prince Edward Island. If ACOA were not there the unemployment rate in the region would be much higher.

We are not opposed to changing the way the agency operates. Last week the minister responsible for ACOA announced a more co-operative approach in assisting small business. Grants are out and interprovincial teamwork is in.

If you believe this rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, you would think that all ACOA money was flushed down the toilet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the member of Parliament for Hillsborough, I look forward to the new spirit of regional development in Atlantic Canada. The minister responsible for ACOA knows Atlantic Canada well and he knows that economic growth in Prince Edward Island will help all Canadians.

[Social Security Programs, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government has launched the first ever comprehensive review of social security programs.

To say the least, this has been long overdue. Canadians realize that the social safety net no longer meets the needs of those in need. Not enough emphasis is placed on ending the cycle of dependence on poverty.

This is particularly true in Atlantic Canada. That region desperately needs better access to higher education and training programs to help people get jobs that last.

Atlantic Canada has a seasonal economy. Agriculture, tourism and fishing are our largest industries and will remain so for a long time. In redesigning the unemployment insurance program and other social programs, I urge the minister to remember the seasonal foundation of our economy.

I am confident this government will design a package that will help us move beyond a seasonal economy and that seasonal workers will not be left behind.

[Commemoration Of Birthplace Of Confederation Act, December 1st, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation.

Madam Speaker, as you probably know, this bill has been a project of mine for the last number of years. The purpose of the bill is to allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to erect plaques or set up museums to mark Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

In 1864 the Fathers of Confederation met in Charlottetown and laid the foundation for this great country. A few years ago the House passed my motion recognizing Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. The time has come for the federal government to act on that recognition.

This bill provides the government with the authority to act. I urge all members in the House to support the commemoration of this great historical event.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to participate in this debate on Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage. My remarks today will be mainly involving Parks Canada's involvement and the role it will play in this act.

It has been said many times that we have inherited a rich legacy and every generation of Canadians has had an opportunity to make a contribution to it. That legacy is our heritage which we share with everyone in Canada wherever they live and whatever their background.

Our natural and wilderness heritage and our sense of history and place are vital elements of this heritage we all share. They are central to who we are and what we value as Canadians.

The new Department of Canadian Heritage reflects the many dimensions of the Canadian experience, an experience that is always evolving. Protecting areas of natural and historic significance to the nation for the benefit and enjoyment of all Canadians is the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

In the past a big part of that job has been done and will continue to be done by Parks Canada, a key component of the new department. The creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage will not in any way undermine the importance we place on issues associated with the protection and preservation of our natural heritage, both natural and cultural.

The Department of Canadian Heritage supports Parks Canada's mandate in this area. All parts of the department are working hard to make sure that Canada's heritage and environment are valued today and passed on to tomorrow.

Parks Canada's traditions, now departmental traditions, go back more than a century to the establishment at Banff in 1885 of Canada's first national park. Of course our system of national historic sites started with Fort Anne in Nova Scotia more than 75 years ago.

From Ellesmere Island national park within the Arctic circle in the north to Point Pelee national park at the southern tip of Canada and from the lighthouse at Cape Spear national historic site at the country's eastern edge on the Atlantic to the Pacific rim national park on the west coast, our national parks and national historic sites dot the length and the breadth of Canada. They are Canada's pride, the crown jewels of our heritage.

Canadians have a strong attachment to and affection for the land and the landscape of the country whether found in small towns, in rural areas, in the wilderness or in the historic districts of the large cities.

Landscape is a vital component of our heritage and it forms part of the rhythm of our lives. Our historic landmarks are a vital part of the landscape, a significant and irreplaceable part of Canada's physical environment. Canada's national historic sites, heritage railway stations and federal heritage buildings are located in every province and territory.

Mr. Speaker, as I speak to you today there is construction under way in my riding of Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, on the building of a memorial park to commemorate the place where the Fathers of Confederation first stepped ashore and began their journey up Great George Street to the steps of Province House in Charlottetown. What occurred over the next few days in Province House was indeed the beginning of the formation of our country as we know it today. From that point on Charlottetown was to become known as the birthplace of Confederation.

These historical sites are a tangible symbol of our national unity and heritage and are of great importance to the constituents in my riding as well as to the many people who come to visit them.

One or more national historic sites are located in over 400 communities across the land, meaning that these communities are direct stakeholders in the national heritage, sharing that heritage with their fellow Canadians and with visitors to our country.

Our country's national parks, national marine conservation areas and heritage rivers add to this shared legacy of outstanding special places held in trust for all Canadians.

As symbols of our national heritage all of these special places speak directly to Canadian identity. They are living laboratories, places where the public can truly experience Canada's past or its wilderness.

Historic sites cover a vast span of human history measured in thousands of years and document the populating of the land, economic and social development, nation building, Canadian achievements in arts, culture, human rights, wilderness preservation and the sciences, as well as a vast number of other human endeavours and activities. As both the product and the witness of the works of our predecessors, they are fundamental to a broadly defined and diverse yet encompassing sense of Canadian identity.

These heritage places provide an excellent opportunity to make all Canadians more aware of their history and to make landed immigrants and new Canadians aware of their Canadian heritage, aware of the places, events, activities and people that have made us what we are. In this respect these places can play a vital role promoting citizenship value.

Because these historic sites are nationally significant they serve as links between the community and the nation and between the subject of commemoration and our national history.

Each national historic site can be said to illustrate an important chapter in a national saga that is constantly unfolding not only into the future but perhaps surprisingly into the past. A number of national historic sites document the fact that our human history is many thousands of years older than we once thought.

National historic sites represent one of the most important and valuable examples of a vital Canadian tradition, the partnership between individuals, corporations and governments in the history of our country.

Fewer than one-fifth of Canada's national historic sites are owned by the federal government. The investment, the involvement and the co-operation of others in the preservation of places that have been designated nationally significant by the federal government is a remarkable and regrettably often little recognized national partnership of achievement.

Federal heritage buildings and heritage railway stations recall an era when federal buildings and railway stations were often the most important and imposing landmarks in communities large and small across the country, serving as symbols of national integration and confidence in the future.

No less significant than national historic sites, federal heritage buildings and heritage railway stations is the program that formally recognizes persons and events that have played an important part in our history. The program fosters knowledge and appreciation of the achievements of Canadians, such as the boxer Sam Langford, the poet Pauline Johnson, the scientist and educator Frère Marie-Victorin, piano manufacturer Theodore Heintzman, and reformer Nellie McClung.

Events or themes that have been officially recognized have included the inauguration of the transcontinental railway service and the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

I know that my time is running out. I could continue on for many more minutes here but I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are looking at your watch.

The Department of Canadian Heritage will be much more than the sum of its parts. Canada is a country of great geographical and cultural diversity, yet as Canadians we share so much.

Our objective is to foster pride in our achievements as people and as a country. Canada's heritage is evolving. Each generation is making its own contribution to the development of our shared heritage.

Working together in the new department in partnership with Canadians we will achieve more than we ever could do on our own. I invite all members of the House to support the bill to create the Department of Canadian Heritage.