Bryon Wilfert

[Natural Resources, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal attempts to build a just society have been attacked, torn apart, and left in ruins by this meanspirited ideological government. The communities and institutional building program provided incentives to commercial businesses and public institutions to improve the energy efficiency of buildings across this country. The government simply did not care. With the stroke of a pen, it eliminated $78 million of funding.

Why will the Minister of Natural Resources not help Canada's workplaces and make them more energy efficient, and give us a real answer for a change?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this particular issue. As a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, I always find these particular interventions very important. I certainly have no preconceived notions in terms of what the government may bring down.

However, I can say that I am very proud of the fact that in the past the Liberal Government of Canada was able to bring down eight consecutive budget surpluses, the longest in the history of Canada. We were the first ones to deal with paying down the debt.

When we came into government in 1993, we inherited a $42.5 billion deficit, which means that 33¢ of every dollar that was being transferred was actually borrowed. Therefore, it was not, in my view, real money.

The Standing Committee on Finance had over 400 submissions and heard the concerns of 400 witnesses. Of course no government can respond to all 400, no matter how worthy it may be.

I hope the government will approach the budget in a balanced manner, which means dealing with debt reduction, with social spending and, obviously, with tax reduction. However, it is important that we have a balance but we cannot do it all without a clear balance in dealing with the needs of Canadians.

There were issues concerning a sustainable economy, a healthy environment, healthy communities, high quality of life, dealing with seniors and so on. I will focus on a few of those issues.

I thought it a bit ironic that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance announced a billion dollars in spending cuts at the same time that they announced a $13.2 billion surplus for 2005-06. They certainly cannot accuse us of leaving the cupboards bare with a $13.2 billion surplus. I support the fact that money was put on the debt. We have a debt at the moment of about $481 billion but, because of past Liberal governments, we paid $82 billion on the debt, which is extremely important.

The Conservative government, as we know, has done a lot of cutting. I think that deals with the root of the problem, which is that cuts affect communities and they affect people. When we see funding cuts that are targeted at women, at aboriginals or at the need for affordable housing, those clearly have created concerns across the country.

The Conservatives always say that they are concerned about minorities. The only minority that I think they are really concerned about is the minority of people who voted for them in the 2006 election.

When we see $45 million slashed for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the $10 million elimination of support for Canadian volunteerism, the $6 million cut for the Canadian Firearms Centre and the $18 million cut for literacy skills, those are issues that affect the average Canadian.

As the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I am concerned about the lack of a focus on dealing with communities across the country. The fact is that it was the past Liberal government which brought forth the first national infrastructure program in 1994. It languished under the previous Conservative government for 10 years and it was the Liberal government that first said that it would deal with the issue of infrastructure deficit in Canada.

We do not see that from the present government. We need to again see a partnership program with the provinces, territories and municipal governments. It is important that we deal with those issues.

Clearly, when municipal governments have a very limited tax base, it was the Liberal government in the past that came through and eliminated the issue of GST rebate, which at the time was 57.14%. We were able to save $1 billion for municipalities across this country.

Municipal governments are saying they do not have those kinds of projects. The previous Liberal government dealt with the green enabling fund, a revolving fund to deal with green projects, something which was well used by municipal governments across the country.

In the 2005 budget, we dealt with brownfields. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, in your own riding you have communities that may have a former gas station site that is very difficult to deal with. With a brownfield of that nature we need leverage money in order to clean it up. We had that in the last government as one of our environmental initiatives, and an extremely important initiative it was.

I talked about the $1 billion that the government cut in September. We understand that it will cut $7.4 billion, particularly from environmental initiatives, post-secondary education, job training, research and innovation. I do not understand the logic. Some people say it is ideologically driven. I would say it is simply a lack of understanding of the importance that many of these areas have for Canadians.

We want to be on the cutting edge. If we want to be cutting edge in the world, we need to have the best trained and the best educated people. Therefore, we need innovation.

My colleague from Dartmouth knows all about this. He worked very hard in the past on these issues and knows that unless we are at that cutting edge, we are not able to compete. We need to be able to compete. We need job training programs that will put people back to work, even those who are suddenly out of work after being in a job for 20 or 25 years. How do we deal with older workers? We need a job training program that gives them an incentive to go forward. I would hope the government would look at those kinds of things.

We need to find post-secondary education funding. One of the problems in post-secondary education is that when we transfer money in a block to the provinces, we do not really know where it ends up. That is something we need to talk about, and I would certainly like to talk about it a little more today.

Another area is the environment. I am very disappointed that the government has decided to slash and burn many of the programs that we had in the past to deal with the environment.

I notice that the Minister of the Environment is in the House. I want to say quite sincerely to her and to her parliamentary secretary that in fact we all agree that the environment is probably the number one issue facing humanity today. We see the problem of the polar ice cap melting. We see the problem in terms of habitat being affected by this. We see the issue of depleted rain forests.

The problem is that we on this side of the House understand the urgency of the issue. On that side of the House, government members think they can set targets for 2050. The fact is that they cut $584.5 million from environmental programs, at Natural Resources Canada, $2.9 million in grants and scholarships for post-secondary students. These are the kinds of things which make one wonder. What are they thinking about?

Why would they cut $227 million from the EnerGuide housing retrofit program? In fact, they cut it without telling anybody. I actually know of people who were in the system and suddenly overnight, they were told they did not qualify any more.

Normally when a government does that type of thing, when it changes a program, it is at least grandfathered to a certain date. The reality is that there are people who had already spent money, who were prepared to move forward to make sure that their homes were environmentally sound, dealing with windows, doors, new furnaces, et cetera, and they were caught by that. That is something I would urge the government to review. It was very sad to see that.

We have seen that situation with EnerGuide for low income households. Again it is another issue where people who need that kind of assistance obviously were in some difficulty. They had relied on this program and again without any warning, it was cut.

Some people would say that this is ideologically driven. I would simply say that the government needs to get better advisers. The government needs to look at what other countries are doing.

In 2005 we brought down project green, which was the most aggressive plan of the G-8 when dealing with climate change. The programs that were in place were ones that Canadians understood, that they could take advantage of and use in their own communities. Over 70,000 homes took advantage of being able to retrofit. There were 70,000 people who thought it was worthwhile enough to participate. EnerGuide programs were rated in the top five of the most efficient Kyoto programs by the environment commissioner, yet without warning they were cut.

In the area of education, I think we are all very aware of the importance of having the best educated society that we can have, to attract the best and the brightest to stay in Canada and to bring the best and the brightest to this country. As a former educator I am particularly sensitive to the fact that we have to provide the ability for research and development for Canadians.

The national government in Ottawa is not responsible for tuitions. The federal government is not responsible for the programs, but as a partner it provides money. The difficulty is that a lot of these are what we call block transfers. I notice that the Standing Committee on Finance is looking at having a separate item identified for post-secondary education. That is very important. Whether members are on that side of the House or this side of the House, we all would like to know where the money goes. We would like to see it identified. It is extremely important that in the post-secondary area that that in fact be done.

One of the things the government could do, and I make this as a recommendation to the government, is it could act immediately on post-secondary education in terms of low income and disabled students. The importance of developing a highly educated and skilled population could be achieved in many ways.

First of all, as we know, investing in students is not about promoting individual wealth. It is not about who is lucky enough to pursue a post-secondary education, to go to college or university. People should have the opportunity regardless of their financial situation.

The previous Liberal government provided tax credits and obviously things toward textbooks as an example. We had the millennium scholarships program. There have been people who have come to the standing committee who want to see that scholarship program back again. It was an initiative of the previous Liberal government. When the millennium occurred, rather than create some big monument to the millennium, it decided to invest in university and college students across the country. It was well received I think by colleagues in all parties.

Cutting youth employment programs is a mistake. Young people often need a part time or summer job in order to make money to go to university. Not having those youth internship programs and literacy programs which are needed is a very sad thing. I am hoping that the government will review that situation.

One area that I talked about it when I was the parliamentary secretary is the Canada social transfer, the CST. It should be divided into a social transfer and a post-secondary education transfer as a means of increasing transparency and accountability. Members on all sides of the House talk about transparency and accountability. This would be very good.

It would also hold the feet of the provinces to the fire. They could not simply say they did not get enough from Ottawa. They would have to indicate the particular area where the money went, for example, the social transfer area. We need to do that with respect to post-secondary education. The Standing Committee on Finance had thorough discussions on that and received excellent representations on it.

It is important that by having the highest educated workforce we also see the problem of increasing tuition fees. Tuition fees do not fall under the purview of Ottawa, but clearly we need to provide as much assistance as we can. We do that in terms of availability for student loans. We see that in terms of grants. We also need to make sure that we have opportunities for students to go out and work in order to help them go to university.

We need to motivate young people. We need to provide opportunities across this country. We live in the greatest country in the world. We have opportunities galore, as long as people have hope. They need hope. One of the things that government can do is not hand out but hand up and it can do that through these kinds of programs. Lack of education is a loss not only for the individual but it is a loss for our country. That is something we cannot continue to see.

One of the areas is the registered education savings plan. One of my colleagues in the House has a private member's bill which says that only 27% of Canadian families in fact have RESPs to pay for their children's education, but they are not tax deductible. The problem is that when they put money into the plan, there is absolutely no credit. One major reason that not many people have a plan is there is not that incentive, whereas there is one with an RRSP.

Making contributions tax deductible, as the bill proposes, would offer families incentives and financial assistance to create a managed RESP. If families put in even $100 a month, in a year that would be $1,200. That is important because the aim is to make sure that we get young people into post-secondary institutions.

It would also provide assistance in addressing some of the education costs. It would lessen the impact of post-graduation debt. One of the things I hear about is the debt that students often come out with at the end of their four years of university.

I think all members in the House would concur that we need to make access easier for post-secondary education skills training for our young people. The government has an important role to play. I do not think this is a partisan issue. I do not think it is a Liberal issue, an NDP issue, a Conservative issue or a Bloc issue. It is everyone's issue. How do we approach that?

One-third of the students who left before graduating in 2002 did so for financial reasons. We need to address that issue. It is projected that by 2010 a four year degree program will cost in excess of $10,000 and that does not include books and all the other things which really add up.

I would like to return briefly to the issue of the environment. I see the parliamentary secretary is here. He and I have worked together in the past. I want to point out that the environment plan the minister presented, the clean air plan, was basically rejected by environmentalists, NGOs and certainly by many members in the House. I thank the government for at least sending the bill to a special committee which will review this piece of legislation. It will be an opportunity to put back many of the things that were decimated in the past.

We have seen, for example, that 92% of the project green funding was cut by the government. Clearly we are still looking at the impact of that. I talked earlier about EnerGuide and other opportunities which Canadians had been using up until the cuts were made.

The minister enunciated yesterday the issue of the debt, particularly the international Kyoto system and about the $1.5 million. It was not clear today in question period whether the $1.5 million has been paid. Was the money sent by FedEx? I am not sure. The minister has indicated that it has been paid. I will take her at her word, although her ADM contradicted her in committee yesterday, so I am not really sure. That is something that clearly needs to be sorted out.

There was the issue of the previous Liberal government proposing to add six greenhouse gases in September 2005 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. The government is now talking about having to amend CEPA and dealing with different changes. The legislation already has the ability to deal with that. It does not need to be changed.

We have an international responsibility in dealing with the environment and clearly we have to provide both financial support and policy in that regard. That is why the previous government had launched project green, as I said, the most aggressive plan of the G-8.

The fact is that we have to honour our commitments. We often have heard the government say that it is not going to make its targets. For the last 10 months I have not seen anything which would suggest that the government is meeting its targets at all, because it wasted 10 months. We need to move forward in that regard.

I abhor debt of any kind. That is why I was very proud of the previous government's paying down of the national debt. I certainly am pleased to see that the present government is intending to do so, although the $13 billion that it put down from 2005-06 of course was part of our government.

Mr. Speaker, if you are telling me that my 20 minutes is up, that is a fast 20 minutes, but I have tried to enunciate at least some of the concerns that some of my constituents and I have in this regard.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group representing its participation at the third executive committee meeting of the Interparliamentarians for Social Services held in Jeju, Korea from August 23 to 25.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group representing its participation at the first workshop of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentarians' Conference on Environment and Development, held in Seoul, Korea from September 1 to 3.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group representing its participation at the 27th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization held in Cebu, Philippines, from September 10 to 15.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this party is prepared to work with all parties in amending this bill and making positive improvements. Maybe we could put back a lot of the good things that the previous Liberal government was doing that the Conservative government has decided to gut.

I will give the hon. member my assurance that we are prepared to work with his party and any others that are prepared to seriously deal with the environmental issues of the day.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to be negative. I am only going over what actually occurred. The member should not take my word for it. NGOs unanimously have denounced the clean air act. NGOs have all said that this is hollow legislation. In fact, they say that CEPA is already in place and that the government has the broad powers under CEPA to regulate all air pollution, indoor, outdoor, whatever one likes. However, this legislation does not have any short or medium goals and it needs them.

The answer to the hon. member is that the legislation already exists. This is another diversionary tactic by the government. Instead of dealing with the issue, it has put before the House a piece of legislation that does not address the needs and in fact which NGOs across the country have unanimously said is simply more hot air and rhetoric from a party that has never had, as a centrepiece of its platform, the issue of the environment, which is the number one concern of Canadians.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, the clean air act, but I wonder why such a bill has been proposed by the government since the previous Liberal government had the most aggressive plan of the G-8. As the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment, I challenge anyone in this House to name one country that had a more aggressive plan than Canada.

In April 2005, the previous government unveiled project green. It is somewhat disingenuous for the Conservatives to suggest that somehow we did nothing for 13 years. It is an absolute farce. Had they read and had they in fact continued on the road with what this government had started, we would be much further ahead today than this hot air plan that we are getting from the government.

The first myth we hear from the Conservatives is that we were going to buy hot air credits from Russia. That is nonsense. All the credits were Kyoto compliant. The second myth is that we do not support this because we are not putting any money into this. Last year we had the greenest budget in Canadian history of $10 billion.

The government is proposing to take action but it has done nothing for the last 10 months. When it unveiled this clean air act, it was recycling some of the things that we had proposed had it not been for the federal election. We do not need to do some of these things because the legislation is already there. I will talk about CEPA in a moment.

In September 2005, the previous Liberal government proposed adding six greenhouse gases, GHGs, to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. They included carbon dioxide, methane, fluoro carbons and sulphur, but unfortunately an election came. These GHGs were included in the Kyoto protocol. Our government was committed to ensuring that we reached our targets.

Now some people said that those targets were not possible. They are not possible if we do not do anything. We had an aggressive plan. The former minister of the environment, now the leader of the official opposition, went to Montreal to COP 11. I had the privilege of chairing a session of parliamentarians from around the world at the G-8+5. We were able to get an historic agreement. We were able to get countries onside with regard to the post-Kyoto period.

Regrettably, the official opposition at the time, the Conservative Party, said that it did not believe in Kyoto. It was because some of those members, I believe, belong to the flat earth society. They do not believe the earth is round. If they do not believe in the science then naturally they would assume that this is not a real issue. They should tell that to the natives of the north. They should tell them about the melting of the polar ice cap or the floes that are now happening. My good friend from the Northwest Territories will certainly attest to the fact that we are finding problems in terms of habitat. Polar bears are now being disoriented because of the melting.

It may be good for some of us not to have to walk in the snow in the south but it is a tragedy for those in the north. I have to say that I believe this is the most important issue facing Canadians and in fact people around the world. We need to deal with this.

The government proposes this clean air act and yet that is the party that has always opposed Kyoto and always said that we could not do this and we could not do that. The reality is that we did a lot of very positive things.

We had an agreement in the 14th MOU with the Canadian manufacturers of automobiles. The government claims that this was a voluntary measure. We had 13 MOUs with the auto sector and every one was fulfilled. In fact, in the 14th one, we can measure the trajectory to ensure that the measures to reduce GHGs by 5.3 megatonnes would occur. If this did not happen, we could bring in and use a regulatory back stop, but the reality is that we have not had to. To suggest somehow that there is a problem, when we have already had 13 MOUs that were lived up to, I am not sure what the issue is.

We had 700 final emitters, the largest ones in the country, and we made an agreement with the 700 largest final emitters. Again, we hear from the Conservatives that this side did not do anything. Maybe they should talk to some of their friends in the flat Earth society because maybe the doubters over there just do not get it. They do not get it that the environment is extremely important and that we need to take action. What they have proposed under the clean air act is not action. It has a 2050 target. They now want to add things that they opposed back in September 2005, the things that this party proposed. Now they are saying that they are not bad ideas but that they need to change things because they do not have the proper tools. However, they do have the proper tools.

The amendments they are proposing to CEPA are completely and utterly unnecessary. We already have the vehicle but the members across the way said that it does not work so they opposed it. While they were opposing that vehicle, they have not read and do not understand what we already had in place. We do not need more legislation. We already have the legislation that we had adopted but the Conservatives refuse to use it.

We have a Minister of the Environment, and I do not know if she can spell the word, but she has not articulated a plan that will address the pressing needs. We were the government that dealt with taking 95% of sulphur out of gasoline. We were the government that was well respected on the international stage because of what we had done. As a member of Globe International, G-8+5, which is global parliamentarians for the environment, when I go to international meetings they now ask me what has happened in Canada when we were making such progress, moving forward, had the legislation and had the people on side.

We did not need to go to court as they did in California with the auto sector. We had an agreement on the reduction of 5.3 megatonnes. While the Conservatives were fiddling over there, we were taking action. While they were complaining, I did not see a plan during the federal election on the environment. I guess that is why we did not see anything until recently in the House called the clean air act or, as I like to say, the hot air act.

There is no question that we had programs. The present government is the one that gutted programs that we had brought in. In the one tonne challenge program, everyone had a responsibility to participate and to be involved. What did the Conservatives do? They cut it.

We did environmental audits so people could improve their homes, whether it was insulation for their windows, their doors, new furnaces, et cetera, but suddenly in the middle of the night the program was cancelled. Not only was it cancelled, it was not grandfathered. I, and I am sure others in this House, had constituents phoning and saying that they had just spent the money they thought they would be getting as a rebate and now suddenly they have nothing. We had to investigate this because the government was not clear. It talks about a clean air act but it cannot even come clean in here about the programs it gutted.

The real spokesperson on the environment is the Minister of Natural Resources. I went in October to the ministerial meeting in Monterrey, Mexico where all the environment ministers from the G-8+5 were there except our minister. It was the Minister of Natural Resources Canada who was the lead spokesperson. That is a travesty.

I will say again that everywhere I go around the world people are asking me what has happened. They want to know what happened to the leadership and the vision of the Liberal government in the past that took the lead and was the lead at the COP 11 in Montreal. I say that the best the Conservatives can up with is a hollow clean air act. I must say that it makes me very sad when they will not even try to embrace the positive things that were done and that because they were done by a previous Liberal government they must be bad.

However, according to those around the world, they were excellent and Canadians thought they were excellent.

[Liberal Party of Canada, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to congratulate all of the candidates who sought the Liberal leadership at last week's convention. It was a campaign of ideas, a campaign of renewal and a campaign of hope for all Canadians. I know that my colleagues have worked hard on their campaigns and will continue to work hard for constituents and for Canada.

In particular, I would like to congratulate our party's new leader, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. He has demonstrated commitment and dedication as minister, as a candidate and now as leader. His vision for Canada will resonate from the largest city to the smallest town.

As one who has worked very closely with him, I know his energy, determination and ability to listen are what gained the trust of so many delegates at the convention and will for all Canadians.

[National Peacekeepers’ Day Act, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-287, a bill to recognize a national peacekeepers' day. It is certainly appropriate. Parliament has passed bills in the past and previous ministers have also recognized special days. I think of Vimy Ridge Day, April 9, to honour our soldiers who fought at Vimy Ridge in 1917. National Aboriginal Day is in June.

The purpose of the bill is to recognize the tremendous role and the history of peacekeepers in this country since the days of Lester B. Pearson. In 1956 he first proposed at the United Nations a peacekeeping mission with regard to the Suez Canal crisis.

Historically in the world, armies have been involved in combat and often in peacemaking rather than peacekeeping. After the Suez Canal crisis, in November 1956, for the first time countries in the region, including Egypt and Israel, agreed to the proposal to have peacekeepers there. Canada's foreign affairs minister at the time, Lester Pearson, proposed the United Nations expeditionary force to go there and basically separate Egyptian and Israeli troops. For this he received the Nobel Peace Price in 1957.

Canadians have been very proud and have been recognized around the world for their peacekeeping efforts. We have trained. Whether it is on the Golan Heights with Japanese troops, whether it is in Cambodia, or elsewhere, our troops have been recognized for their peacekeeping efforts. People recognize the expertise of Canadians in the peacekeeping field. That is very important.

A national peacekeepers' day would be a day to take time to pause, to think about all of those missions in which Canadians have participated around the world, for example, Cyprus. It would be day to recognize what Canadians have contributed to assist in maintaining not only peace, but also in the promotion of that peace. It is very important to recognize the contribution.

The United Nations under the Security Council gives the power and responsibility to take collective action when it comes to peace and security around the world. For this reason, the international community looks at these types of operations where Canadians and others have played such an important role in the past.

I know all members of the House are very supportive and very proud of the role of our peacekeepers. Over 100,000 Canadian Forces participate in peacekeeping and peace support missions around the world. Regrettably, over 100 have been killed in action over the years.

I would like to stress the importance of a national peacekeeping day. It would be a day to remember, a day to reflect and a day to pause. The Department of Canadian Heritage does a tremendous job in educating Canadians with information packets, brochures, et cetera. I would envision in declaring August 9 national peacekeepers' day, and I will explain why August 9 in a moment, that it would be in part to educate Canadians, particularly young people. It is very important that they understand the role. Why August 9? Because regrettably, 32 years ago on August 9, nine Canadian peacekeepers en route from Beirut to Damascus were killed by a surface missile.

I congratulate the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in proposing this bill and suggesting August 9 as the day, not only to remember those nine brave Canadians who lost their lives in the quest for peace, but also to recognize in a broader sense all of those who have continued to serve and will serve this country in the future, and to pay homage.

I am the son of a World War II veteran who fought on the shores of Normandy through the Battle of the Falaise Gap, through Caen, through Belgium and Holland. Unfortunately he had shrapnel in his legs until the day he died and suffered from the loss of hearing in one ear from being buried alive when his tank was hit by a shell. I was always instilled with the importance of the role of Canadian soldiers.

It is a fact that freedom does not come cheaply. We are engaged in what I would consider to be a peacemaking mission in Afghanistan. Whether it is a peacekeeping role in Cyprus, the fact is that Canadians have always stepped up and contributed effectively over the years. In situations of civil wars, ethnic cleansing, genocides, Canadian peacekeepers have worked to save the lives of many people around the world. They are heroes.

Normally when we think of peacekeepers, we do not think of them as being involved in conflict situations. Regrettably from time to time they could be fired upon by other parties as they were in Bosnia, or when they could hit a mine when travelling along a road. Our peacekeepers put their lives on the line every day.

I am sure all members of this House would join me in supporting the recognition of a national peacekeepers' day on August 9.

I mentioned that over the last 53 years we have seen Canadians participate in many theatres and also assist other countries in the art and the role of peacekeeping. When Canadians wear their blue berets or blue helmets, people know that peacekeepers are there to improve the quality of life for individuals in very difficult situations. They are there to assist in the peace process.

There is no question that sometimes Canadians are not aware of the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Some would argue that in 1993 Somalia was not a peacekeeping mission; it was a peacemaking mission. Afghanistan is a peacemaking mission, although we are there obviously to try to improve the lives of people who are in a very difficult situation.

Recognition is important. We do not do this lightly. We do not declare national holidays. National peacekeepers' day would not be a bank holiday, or something in that regard. In a sense it would be a day to reflect. I think it is important as a recognition.

Not too far from Parliament Hill there is a monument to Canadian peacekeepers around the world, to their dedication and hard work. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians and Canadians in general not only to recognize the contribution of peacekeepers, but also to help educate people on the role of peacekeeping.

As a former educator, I can say that nothing is more effective than making sure that materials are available in schools. I commend the Department of Canadian Heritage for the tremendous work it does in ensuring that information material is available.

I urge members to support private member's Bill C-287. The member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is no stranger to this issue. He proposed and we adopted April 9 as Vimy Ridge Day.

This issue is important. I would expect that this would be one of the few debates that would not be acrimonious because I think there is a spirit here for that recognition.

[Canadian Heritage, November 10th, 2006]

There is another broken promise, Mr. Speaker.

Conservatives told the Canadian Museums Association, “Please be assured that generous funding for Canada's museums would be a priority for a Conservative government”. Let me spell it out for the reality challenged minority Conservative government. Decrease is not increase. Less is not more. Tight-fisted is not generous.

Why did the Conservatives break their promise and slash $4.6 million from the museums assistance program?

[Remembrance Day, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Remembrance Day Canadians join together as a nation to honour the service and sacrifice of our veterans who served our country in two world wars, in Korea, in peacekeeping missions around the world and in Afghanistan.

I want to pay special tribute to my late father who served in the Argyle and Southern Highlanders who landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944. He suffered severe shrapnel wounds in his legs, lost his hearing in one ear and was briefly buried alive when the tank he was riding on was hit.

It is because of the actions of my father and men and women who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces that we enjoy the freedoms we have today. We can never repay the debt we owe them.

On November 11 we stand to remember the sacrifices and give thanks to the legacy of peace that all Canadians enjoy.