Bob Wood

[Veterans Affairs, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the valentines for vets program has been ongoing now for seven years.

Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicate to the House what the response has been this year and what this program actually means to our veterans?

[Valentines for Vets, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is St. Valentine's Day and across this country more than 3,000 valentine greetings have been received by veterans in long term care facilities through the Valentines for Vets program.

Through this program for the past seven years, Veterans Affairs Canada has invited Canadians to create special valentines for our Canadian veterans. One veteran who received his valentine this year was quoted as saying:

It gave me a great feeling. They're strangers and Valentine's Day is about love but it's a great thing. It means these young people haven't forgotten me, forgotten what I did.

Another veteran indicated that he was thrilled because he had not receive a valentine since he was a child.

Sending valentine cards may seem like a small gesture but it is so meaningful for our veterans. Anyone who knows a veteran should take the time today to thank them for their service to our country. Let them know that they will be forever in our hearts, and they will love us for it.

[Veterans, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is the week Canadians proudly wear the scarlet poppy on our lapels. We do so as a reminder of how much we owe our veterans who served this nation in two world wars, in Korea, the Gulf war and in countless peacekeeping operations around the world.

We were reminded of the true nature of their sacrifice not so many months ago with the tragic loss of four of our own in Afghanistan.

Over the years, our veterans have simply asked that we recognize and remember their service. It seems so very little to ask in return for all they have done for our nation. We, who have inherited that future, remain forever grateful to the veterans of Canada.

It remains incumbent upon us to demonstrate that gratitude by keeping their stories alive, not just for this generation but for generations to come. The stories of our nation give our children the glue of our history and our common values that bind our country together.

Let us keep those stories alive, lest our children forget.

[Veterans Affairs, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this Thursday we commemorate D-Day, the day that the Canadian forces landed on Juno Beach as part of the allied force during the second world war.

Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the House this afternoon how the government is ensuring that future generations learn about Canada's sacrifices in the second world war?

[Observance of Two Minutes of Silence on Remembrance Day Act, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity today to join the debate on Bill C-297, an act to promote the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.

I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for his efforts to remember the service and sacrifice of our war veterans. As the hon. member has said, he brought an identical piece of legislation forward in 1998. At that time there was general support for its purpose to promote the observance of two minutes of silence.

Since we all agree with the principle, this debate gives us an opportunity to discuss how we can best honour the more than 1.4 million young Canadians who volunteered to serve in our military, and the more than 116,000 Canadians who gave their lives defending our values of peace and freedom.

There is no doubt that our war era veterans are getting older. Those from the first world war would all be centenarians. One day in the not too distant future we may well hear that the last veterans from the great war have passed on and we will have lost forever the firsthand witnesses to that terrible time. Veterans from the second world war are now in their eighties. Many are facing the battles that occupy advancing age. Fifty years ago we were waging battle on the Korean peninsula.

We also pay tribute to our peacekeepers who have served and continue to serve in missions on virtually every continent. Through their experiences and recollections, our veterans tell us about the real cost of war and the price of peace that is often taken for granted. In return, on November 11, they simply ask that we take the time to remember. They are passing the torch of remembrance to younger generations. Canadians are responding to that challenge.

The horrible events of September 11 gave us all a profound appreciation of what was at stake when our veterans fought on foreign soil. With members of our own Canadian forces today serving in the war on terrorism, last year's Remembrance Day ceremonies were even more poignant and powerful.

The Government of Canada is committed to continuing the commemoration of heroic actions of all our veterans, Canadian forces members and peacekeepers. The act of remembrance brings us together as Canadians united by a sense of pride, a feeling of belonging and an ongoing commitment to shared values. We must dedicate our energy, initiative and time to this noble cause. We must sustain the rising interest and welcome good ideas.

Our veterans, as well as the families of those Canadian forces members serving abroad, must have been heartened by the tremendous support of the many thousands of Canadians who took part in last year's Remembrance Day ceremonies. We recall that many branches of the Royal Canadian Legion ran out of poppies during veterans' week. That had never happened before.

As has been pointed out in previous debates the idea of a moment of silence is hardly new. Ever since armistice the notion and the practice of two minutes of silence has been at one time or another part of the remembrance ceremonies for many Commonwealth countries.

Since the mid-1990s Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Australia and Britain, have been encouraging the revival of this unique custom. In 1996 the British took up the Royal British Legion's call to observe a two minute silence on Remembrance Day. Indeed the Royal Canadian Legion has launched a very active campaign for two minutes of silence. In 1999 the Prime Minister promoted the two minutes of silence in his special Remembrance Day message.

We encourage Canadians to observe the two minutes of silence. The very act of citizens stopping what they are doing and pausing for two minutes of silent tribute is a meaningful way for all of us collectively to honour our veterans and to pledge that we will remember their sacrifices long after they have passed on to greater rewards. However just as importantly, for the generations of Canadians who have never known war the two minutes gives us an opportunity to stop and actively think of the sacrifices of those who contributed so much for our beloved Canada throughout the nation's military history.

The suggestions of ways in which the people of Canada could promote the observance of two minutes of silence are worthy of consideration.

Most of all, it is quite practical and do-able. Silence at Remembrance Day services is relatively easy to arrange. However as much as any of us might promote the observance of a two minute period of silence we should be mindful of certain practical concerns. While there are opportunities for moments of silence in our schools and churches it might not be possible for drivers and many others involved in our transportation, health care and other critical sectors to participate.

Some people have advanced the idea that Canadians all pause at the same time for two minutes. We live in a nation with five time zones. That is why the Royal Canadian Legion initiated the two minute wave of silence. The wave begins in Newfoundland and Labrador and subsequently repeats at the same time in each time zone in the other provinces across this great country. We should continue the practice.

As I mentioned, the legion and Veterans Affairs Canada have been actively promoting the two minute cause for quite some time as part of their activities during National Veterans Week. I am not quite sure we need a bill to do what is in our power to do anyway without the sanction of legislation. I trust all hon. members supporting the measure will vigorously promote the two minutes of silence in their constituencies and encourage the participation of their school districts, businesses and labour, city and business councils. There is nothing stopping any of us from encouraging the practice. It takes no act of parliament to encourage people to take time out and show respect for our veterans.

As a starting point we all might want to advance the cause by noting the idea of a two minute silence in our constituency newsletters in September or October. It might help get the ball rolling on our home turfs. We could encourage our constituents to promote the concept in their places of work, play and worship.

As individual members of parliament we should all work with the Royal Canadian Legion and Veterans Affairs Canada and their many partners to promote and encourage Canadians to participate in remembrance activities including the observance of two minutes of silence. I strongly support the sentiment of Bill C-297 regarding the observance of a two minute silence. However we do not need a piece of legislation to do the right thing.

[2002 Winter Olympics, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking the opportunity this afternoon to underline the performances of Canada's men's and women's curling teams at the Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

Canada continues to be a force to be contended with in the sport of curling. The Kevin Martin rink, from Edmonton, Alberta, narrowly missed the gold medal in men's curling with a six to five defeat to Norway. Martin was joined by lead Don Bartlett, second Carter Rycroft, third Don Walchuk and alternate Ken Trainberg on the podium.

The women's team, composed of skip Kelly Law, Julie Skinner, Georgina Wheatcroft, Diane Nelson and Cheryl Noble, won the bronze medal by a score of nine to five against the United States. This is the same team that won the 2000 Canadian and world championships.

Canadians are very proud of these athletes today and I wish to congratulate them.

[Veterans Affairs, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced today that the names of 23 Canadian soldiers executed in the first world war will be added to the First World War Book of Remembrance which lies in the Memorial Chamber.

Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs share with the House today why this recognition is so important to Canadian history?

[Research and Development, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Will the minister tell the House this morning what the government is doing to support research and development in universities as part of its innovation program?

[Broadcasting Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have again before the House Bill S-7 to amend the Broadcasting Act for the purpose of allowing the CRTC to set out regulations outlining standards for the awarding of costs. In particular it would enable the commission to award and tax costs among the interveners who appear before it.

Why is it important to pass the bill? It is because the principles of fairness and balance guiding the objectives of Bill S-7 are unanimously supported. It is because there are compelling reasons to harmonize the rules with respect to interveners appearing before the CRTC whether they pertain to broadcasting issues or telecommunications issues. It is equally as important to level the playing field between interveners and broadcasting companies appearing before the CRTC. For these reasons Bill S-7 should be passed at second reading and referred to committee.

The reality of convergence comes up time and again in the communications industry. The convergence of technology is one of the key factors in this debate. More and more the regulatory issues and concerns with which the CRTC must grapple are falling under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act and are affecting a wider sweep of Canadian society. Involving citizens in decisions which affect them is a rational approach to an increasingly complex communications environment.

As the commission wrestles with these matters one way of informing its decisions as they pertains to protecting the public interest is to help defray the costs of interveners who participate in broadcasting proceedings. As we make the transition to a new innovative economy, moving from an industrial to a knowledge based economy, this is having an impact on the expectations of government by Canadians and the role of government.

It is only fitting that in a democratic society citizens are encouraged to reflect, participate and respond to decisions being made by commissioners of the CRTC and the corporations that appear before them. After all, the broadcasting system makes use of public resources and through its programming helps Canadians to connect to one another, their history and their country. Converging technologies are blurring the lines between telecommunications and broadcasting which were once formerly separate and distinct industries.

In cases where the CRTC conducted proceedings under both the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act such as the new media hearing, the CRTC awarded costs for interventions only to the extent that they touched upon telecommunications aspects. As further technological integration blurs the lines between communications industries it will be increasingly difficult to weigh the contribution of an intervention according to its impact on telecommunications versus broadcasting.

The majority of applications received for an award of costs for telecommunication proceedings come from consumers or other public interest groups such as the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The commission does not generally award costs to commercial entities or municipalities. Few individuals apply for an award of costs.

An award of costs is usually paid by the regulated telecommunications companies as directed by the commission. The companies must pay these costs directly to the intervener. In the event that more than one telecommunications company is directed to pay the commission determines each company's share, usually based on its operating revenues. To receive an award of costs an intervener must have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings and must have contributed to a better understanding of telecommunications issues by the commission.

That leads me to believe that the proposed bill would level the playing field. It would amend the Broadcasting Act to give the commission for its broadcasting proceedings the same powers it now has under the Telecommunications Act when it conducts telecommunications proceedings. The goals of Bill S-7 are laudable in principle but it will not be an easy task to implement them.

The CRTC has stated that it supports the harmonization of rules with respect to awarding costs to broadcasting interveners and it is willing to undertake the necessary changes by holding a public proceeding with respect to this. In fact the CRTC wants the public and the industry to be involved in a process to determine what that criteria would be.

Should Bill S-7 become law, the challenge of the CRTC will be to determine how interveners will be eligible to receive an award of costs. In the telecommunications rules of procedures interveners must have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, participate in a responsible manner and also contribute to the CRTC's understanding of the issues. Given the plural nature of broadcasting proceedings, it will not be easy to apply the same eligibility criteria without incurring considerable costs.

Our heritage minister has been unfairly attacked in the debate around this bill. Attempting to smear the minister by claiming that this Senate bill has been brought in through the back door is just that, a smear. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Part of good leadership is recognizing and supporting something the public wants and there is overwhelming public support for this legislation. The fact that the bill originated in the other place takes nothing from the bill. It really demonstrates the good work of an esteemed former member of this House and currently a ranking member of the Senate. I want to salute Senator Sheila Finestone and the heritage minister for their leadership behind Bill S-7.

In conclusion, if passed, Bill S-7 would not in any way affect the standing committee's work and recommendations since it is essentially a technical amendment with a view to harmonizing the two acts from which the CRTC derives its authority. I believe it should be passed at second reading and referred to committee for further study.

[Communications Security Establishment, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Last week the government announced additional funding for the Communications Security Establishment. Could the minister today elaborate on this announcement?