Carmen Provenzano

[Veterans Affairs, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of disregarding the court's ruling. The ruling of the court is very important to the government.

I can assure members of the House that this case is not about interest. The government has been paying interest since 1990. It is about the way the government does its business. The case has implications for the government and the government will take a decision in due course upon the advice of its lawyers.

[Veterans Affairs, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Souris--Moose Mountain is well aware that the decision of the court of appeal was given just this past Wednesday.

The government will consider the advice of the government lawyers and take a decision in due course. It is premature to indicate what action the government will take other than that at this time.

[Cenotaphs, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise today to debate the hon. member's motion that the government establish funding to maintain local cenotaphs that are in need of repair and maintenance. I am also pleased that the motion sponsor, the hon. member for Fundy--Royal, is happy to know that our new Minister of Veterans Affairs has publicly stated his interest in the matter of cenotaph maintenance and that he has asked his officials to come up with some options and recommendations.

The member quoted today's edition of the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal and quite correctly the quote attributed to the minister is that there is an eagerness on the part of all of us to look at this in a very positive way to see in what way we can participate. I spoke to the minister about the accuracy of that quote and he confirmed to me that it definitely is his intent.

The minister, like all citizens of the country, is committed to our collective promise to our veterans that we will never forget their service and sacrifices in the cause of peace and freedom on behalf of our country. Our veterans are indeed a part of our national treasure. I agree with the proposition that local cenotaphs need repair and maintenance.

In rising on this motion today, I would like to bring some historical context to the debate. The cenotaphs, found in communities across the country, honour those who gave their lives in the cause of peace and freedom. They are a statement of strong community involvement and deep pride in our history. In fact there are over 6,000 cenotaphs in cities large and small across the nation.

Some were erected under the auspices of the provincial governments, others by municipalities and still others undoubtedly by veterans organizations, concerned citizens, local philanthropists and non-profit societies. Our challenge is to respect this proud tradition, to sustain the spirit of our citizens and to build on the strength of our communities. However Veterans Affairs Canada does not have the funding capacity to repair and maintain all 6,000 cenotaphs. At the same time we recognize that there is a practical limit to what communities can do to make that financial contribution.

Of course I also realize that the hon. member is not suggesting that the government establish an open-ended fund that would commit to funding the repair and maintenance of all cenotaphs. I think hon. members would agree that this is an area where government cannot do it all. That is why we are exploring options and opportunities. Surely it is so much more meaningful to the concept of remembrance and commemoration when Canadian citizens honour their local heroes and our communities have done so.

How can the government and communities share in the important task of keeping these monuments in a honourable state to sustain the fullest meaning of remembrance and commemoration?

At this juncture let me share with the House some of the ways in which Veterans Affairs Canada keeps alive the memory of men and women who served and sacrificed for their country in times of war and in times peace. This remembrance mandate is achieved in the following ways: overseas commemorative pilgrimages, support for veterans' week and public information and outreach initiatives.

As to the question of maintenance, the department is committed to just such a task for some of our most glorious overseas memorials. As hon. members know, Canada, like many Commonwealth countries, buried her dead of two world wars and Korea near where they fell in battle. They are at rest in Commonwealth or United Nations war cemeteries the world over. It has been said many times that we can trace our war history by following the trail of the cemeteries and monuments that lie scattered around the world.

The government is committed to maintaining these memorials to Canadians who have died in the cause of peace and freedom. Recognition of the significance of Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel already has made them national historic sites.

At the same time, a careful assessment of Canada's 13 first world war battlefield memorial sites in Europe has revealed that they have been deteriorating. At an average of 75 years, time and mother nature have done their damage. The repair work required to rehabilitate these sacred monuments is beyond the scope of routine maintenance.

In May last year the Government of Canada announced that it would be committing $30 million to that repair, restoration and rehabilitation over the next five years. More recently, veterans affairs established the Canadian battlefield memorials restoration project. The project's main priority is the restoration of the magnificent Vimy Memorial, at a cost of approximately $20 million. The remaining costs will be dedicated to address issues of health, safety and threats to assets at all sites.

I believe all members support this worthy initiative of preserving this part of our heritage, particularly at these magnificent sites overseas where all the world can see the tremendous contributions our veterans made during those terrible times of war in the early part of the last century.

As for the maintenance of cenotaphs here at home, it has been a long standing policy of the Government of Canada that the National War Memorial in Ottawa, which is dedicated to all veterans, would be the federally funded and maintained war memorial. That commitment continues.

To that end, hon. members will also remember the historic ceremonies in the spring of 2000 that saw the return home and laying to rest of Canada's unknown soldier in the sarcophagus at the national war memorial. It was a commemorative event perhaps matched only by the official opening of the war memorial itself in 1939.

The ceremonies of recovery overseas and the laying to rest and enshrinement of the tomb were seen from coast to coast and once again ignited in Canadians a passion for remembering and honouring their past, and those who continue to protect our shores and liberty, at home and abroad. It was a shining example of how departments of government and veterans organizations can partner for the common goal of remembrance.

Collectively we have been handed a sacred trust to honour and remember those who have given so much to Canada in our country's time of great need. We have accepted this responsibility and we will do our utmost to ensure that the sacrifices and achievements of our veteran population are remembered for generations to come.

Although we may find the wording of the motion a little broad in its sweep and perhaps too open-ended in its implications for funding, I am sure hon. members are pleased with the minister's commitment, as stated earlier, to take a serious look at the principle behind the motion and to look at some practical options.

I thank all hon. members for their continuing commitment to Canada's veterans.

[National Defence, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the government has the highest regard for all of the persons who serve in its armed forces. The commitment that is being requested is not something that can be made in the way that has been expressed at this moment but the matter will be brought to the attention of the minister and a proper response will be given in due course.

[Broadcasting Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak in support of Bill S-7. During the first debate on October 19 the House debated the wording of the bill which would amend the Broadcasting Act in order to allow the CRTC to award costs with respect to broadcasting proceedings. It is important at this stage to reiterate that the principles of fairness and balance which are the guiding objectives of Bill S-7 are firmly supported by all members of the House.

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 important to level the playing field between interveners and broadcasting companies appearing before the CRTC. For these reasons Bill S-7 should be allowed to receive third reading and to proceed to committee.

Bill S-7, should it become law, would promise to offer interested Canadians more equal opportunities to engage and take part in the process of deciding the future direction of our broadcasting system as they do for our telecommunications system.

It is important to understand the context here. In order to assess the opportunity to amend the Broadcasting Act we must keep in mind the purpose of the proposed bill. Under the Telecommunications Act an intervener, a person, company or organization that wishes to address the commission in order to express their views in a telecommunications proceeding is eligible to receive an award of costs for the expenses related to the filing of the intervention.

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 upon its operating revenues.

It should be noted that the majority of applications received for an award of costs 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. It is interesting to note that very few individuals apply for an award of costs.

What is also interesting is that to receive an award of costs, an intervener must have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding and must also have contributed to a better understanding of the telecommunications issues by the commission. That leads me to believe that the proposed bill would actually 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.

Bill S-7 would give public interest groups or individuals that are or may be directly affected by a broadcasting proceeding the opportunity to apply for an award of costs to assist their participation in the commission's proceedings.

I will give an example. A party that has an interest in a broadcasting proceeding may find it difficult without legal or technical assistance to provide relative evidence pertaining to the proceeding. Bill S-7 would allow interveners who participate in broadcast proceedings to be eligible to receive an award of costs for the expenses related to their intervention as is the case now in telecommunications proceedings.

It is important for all Canadians to recognize that they deserve and can play a role in the way our broadcasting system is regulated. That is why the principle of Bill S-7 would provide for equitable financial support for interveners in both telecommunications and broadcasting proceedings.

[Veterans Week, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, another Veterans Week is upon us. It is a time when collectively we declare our great pride in the service and sacrifice of Canada's veterans.

Whenever they were called on to fight oppression and tyranny they answered the call with courage and distinction. In two world wars, in Korea and in countless peacekeeping operations around the world, theirs is a legacy that we pledge never to forget.

With the world now at war with terrorism and with our servicemen and women once again being sent into harm's way it is more important than ever that we remember those who have stood on guard for us from the turn of the last century to the beginning of this one.

This year once again we will meet on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. It is an act of allegiance that knows no limits of time. It is an act of remembrance that we have pledged to honour.

Lest we forget.

[Petitions, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from members of my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie petitioning that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that trafficking in baby parts becomes a criminal offence.

[Petitions, October 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by approximately 5,000 of my constituents of the riding of Sault Ste. Marie.

Many of my colleagues know that Algoma Steel, the main economic engine in my riding, is currently operating under an order of protection from creditors under the Company Creditors Arrangement Act. The petitioners request that parliament participate in the process to create a plan of arrangement between Algoma Steel and its creditors.

[Steel Industry, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian and United States legislators understand that North American steel producers operate in an integrated marketplace. They appreciate the high value of the two way steel trade between our two countries.

That is why Canadian and U.S. legislators have pledged to work closely together to find long term solutions to the crisis created by world overcapacity and the market distorting practices of offshore steel producers which have devastated our steel industries.

I specifically acknowledge the co-operation and efforts of Congressman Phil English, chair of the United States congressional steel caucus, who was in Ottawa today for meetings with our parliamentary steel caucus.

As member of parliament for Sault Ste. Marie, the home of Algoma Steel, my city and I are particularly grateful for Mr. English's submissions to the United States International Trade Commission urging Canada's exemption from any trade remedies that may be imposed as a result of the current global steel investigation.

[Women Veterans, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion which advocates that the government ensures the contributions of women veterans is recognized and honoured in every provincial capital city by way of a monument or statue.

On its surface it is a very worthwhile motion, one deserving of our support. If we were to determine our support on the basis of the sincerity of the member opposite who just spoke in bringing forward this motion and on his good intentions, certainly we could support it. Unfortunately, when we scratch the surface we find it is not a simple motion. It is not one without its own complications.

I preface my remarks by noting that the wording of the motion makes a comprehensive discussion of its merits somewhat difficult, not by what it suggests, that women veterans be honoured by way of a monument or statue, but rather by what it does not say.

As an example, which women veterans does the hon. member mean we should honour? Is it wartime women veterans, peacetime veterans, veterans who serve on or near war fronts, or veterans who serve in a particular battle or campaign? What about war era veterans who had service only in Canada? These are important questions for which we need answers before a reasonable debate can take place.

The motion is also silent on the issue of cost and how these monuments should be paid for. Who will design and build them? Will the provincial governments want to have their say in where such monuments might be placed and whom they should honour? How would veteran organizations be involved?

I submit these questions because it is one thing to be in favour of the motion that seems to suggest a good and honourable deed. However, on closer examination, it presents a whole slew of questions and problems that do not lend themselves to easy answers.

In short, acquiescence to the motion would definitely be a matter of easier said than done. There is no denying the fact that women veterans have made a huge contribution to Canada, particularly during the war years of the last century.

We often first think of the incredible dedication of Canada's nursing soldiers. They have a very proud legacy of military service that dates back as far as 1885 when for the first time Canadian nurses were sent to care for soldiers wounded during the north-west rebellion. When the great war came more than 3,000 would volunteer their services. Casualty clearing stations were set up close to the frontlines and in harm's way. Not only were they subject to danger from the enemy, but contagious disease ran rampant in the terrible killing fields of that atrocious war. Some 46 gave their lives through enemy fire or debilitating disease.

Hon. members need only walk down the Hall of Honour in centre block to see the memorial panel that honours the sacrifices of the nursing sisters of Canada. On one part of the panel are two nursing sisters in uniform tending to a wounded soldier, surely symbolizing the courage and self-sacrifice of all those who served in war.

Prior to 1941 women had only served in the Canadian military as army medical corps nurses. The decision was taken in June 1941 to create a female branch for each of the fighting services rather than a single women's corps. Women immediately began to enlist: more than 21,600 in the Canadian women's army corps and more than 7,000 in the women's division of the RCAF where they served in Canada and overseas as wireless operators, clerks, parachute riggers and photographers.

In 1942 the navy followed suit by creating the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service, the WRENs. The WRENs signed up more than 7,100. No women were assigned to combat duties but some came under enemy fire. In all, approximately 8,000 women served overseas. The nursing service was expanded to all three branches of the military: the navy, the army and the air force, with over 4,400 serving. Many of them found themselves within range of enemy guns.

What of the women who served so ably on the home front? When war was declared, 569,000 women worked in Canadian industry, mostly in clerical jobs. As the war progressed and more and more men were sent overseas in uniform, the government turned its attention to the large pool of female labour.

Within a short time 960,000 women were engaged in jobs in industry and another 800,000 were employed on farms. Fully half of them were engaged in what had once been considered men's work: operating machines, welding, riveting, painting, driving street cars, building weapons and loading freight. It is clear that the war effort could not have been sustained without the work of these civilian veterans on the home front. Surely they are as worthy of honour as those who served in other capacities.

Of course women in uniform continued to serve with distinction during the war in Korea and continue to do so in peacekeeping missions the world over. Today they too are veterans distinguished as such by their service, not by their gender.

Let me now turn from the history of service to the history of Canada's memorials to our fallen veterans. It has been our tradition to bury and remember our war dead in the places where they served. The memorials overseas were constructed on principal battlefields and the geographical areas of importance in wartime. Most of them are inscribed with the names of those whose remains were never found or identified.

There are naturally hundreds of different memorials over the globe. Their history is inextricably entwined with the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission whose history dates back to the first world war. Its mandate was, and remains, to mark and maintain the graves of members of the Commonwealth who died in the first world war and second world war, to build memorials to those with no known grave, and to keep records and registers.

This work was founded on principles which have remained unaltered: that each of the dead should be commemorated individually by name, either on the headstone on the grave or by an inscription on a memorial; that the headstones and memorials should be permanent; that the headstones should be uniform; and that there should be no distinction made on account of military or civil rank, race or creed.

Through the war graves commission Canada has agreed to share along with other participating governments the cost of maintaining the graves and memorials in proportion to the number of her war dead.

Canada independently funds other memorials such as the Vimy and Beaumont memorials in France and the National War Memorial in Ottawa. In the case of the latter I should note that the war memorial shows both men and women passing through the granite arches.

I underscore that these memorials honour those who fell by virtue of their service and sacrifice in a battle or a campaign and not by virtue of their gender, their race, their church affiliation or ethnicity, not because of the accident of their birth but by their deliberation to serve.

For its part the Departement of Veterans Affairs honours the accomplishments and sacrifices of Canada's veterans in many ways. For example, last year's initiative of establishing the tomb of the unknown soldier was embraced by the entire country. Through the extensive television coverage of its installation, the new memorial garnered incredible attention and resulted in much discussion about the contributions of veterans to their nation.

I see that I am running out of time. I will come quickly to our position in this regard. In summing up, the motion is not supportable for essentially three reasons. First, if approved, the motion could be seen as favouring one group of veterans over another. Second, there are other effective ways to ensure that our wartime legacy is preserved and communicated to future generations. Third, the cost is prohibitive.

Building a monument to women veterans in each provincial and territorial capital would be a multimillion dollar expenditure to which ongoing maintenance costs would have to be factored in, not to mention the logistical and jurisdictional issues that would be raised when seeking the agreement and co-operation of each provincial and territorial government.