Hec Clouthier

[Canadian Special Olympics, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Special Olympics is the national sports organization that provides sport training and competition opportunities for athletes who are mentally challenged.

Today the Canadian Special Olympics serves 20,000 athletes through the efforts of 8,000 volunteers. There are offices in every province and the two territories where year-round training occurs.

The Canadian Special Olympics is endorsed by the Canadian Olympic Association. The national winter games will be held from January 25 to January 30 in the year 2000. Canada's capital region's bid for these games will be presented to the Canada Special Olympics on April 27, 1998. This bid, if successful, will be integrated into the Ottawa 2000 millennium celebrations.

On behalf of all citizens of the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I endorse this bid.

Congratulations to my friend and colleague the member for Ottawa—Vanier who has been superlative—

[Ice Storm 1998, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many farmers including those from the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke were hard hit by the January ice storm, one of the greatest natural disasters in Canadian history.

The Government of Canada recognizes the magnitude of the losses faced by these farmers and it is for this reason that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada along with his provincial counterparts announced this morning that all farmers in eastern Ontario will be eligible for compensation for ice storm damage.

This package provides a further $20 million for economic recovery for damages not covered by the DFAA. The governments of Canada and Ontario agree to cost share this program on a 50:50 basis.

The total assistance being provided in eastern Ontario is consistent with that provided for farmers in the Saguenay and Red River disasters and to the support the Government of Canada is giving to help with the effects of this tragic ice storm.

[Seniors, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to talk today about our outstanding seniors.

These august men and women have built this great country at considerable cost to themselves. The United Nations has recognized the contribution of seniors and has declared 1999 the International Year of Older Persons.

I am proud to have a large number of very active seniors in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and I am honoured to say that the Arnprior 707 seniors group is among the very best. Seniors have adapted to our rapidly changing world in the same determined manner that they have demonstrated throughout their lives.

It was Socrates who said we should regard the aged as travellers who have gone on a journey on which we too may have to go and of whom we should inquire whether the road be smooth and easy or rugged and difficult. Our path through life has been made easier because of our sterling seniors.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Jump start is also a good term. Reform wanted to reduce funding to the military. Instead of trying to do the job with the tools we need, we would be doing the job with Tonka toys if it were up to Reformers.

We talked about the JAG, the judge advocate general. I would like to use that acronym for the hon. member for Lakeland and say that he is just another grumbler. We are doing everything we can possibly do to help the military. All they want to do is make vituperative and splenetic remarks about it and indulge in nothing more than crass political opportunism.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly reply to the hon. member for Lakeland. He asked what the military needs. The military certainly needs the tools to do the job. With this government it will get the tools to do the job.

I believe the Reform Party fresh start campaign was a no start for the military—

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Bill C-25 is the most extensive package of amendments to the National Defence Act since enactment in the year 1950. The amendments deal with a wide variety of issues ranging from updating the boards of inquiry provisions to putting some of the Canadian forces domestic duties, such as duties during the recent ice storm, on a firm legislative footing.

But Bill C-25 is primarily about military justice. In that regard it sets out a comprehensive strategy to modernize the code of service discipline in a way that is consistent with the values and expectations of Canadians and meets the Canadian forces requirement for a military justice system that is swift, fair and portable.

As part of this comprehensive strategy, Bill C-25 puts in place a number of mechanisms designed to improve oversight and review of the administration of military justice. Both the report of the special advisory group chaired by the Right Hon. Brian Dickson and the Somalia commission of inquiry recognized the importance of strengthened oversight and review of military justice.

The Dickson advisory group made two important points in this regard. First, military justice by definition must include an effective, independent channel or mechanism through which service members can express their concerns about any aspect of the military establishment. Second, in their opinion, such a mechanism would ultimately strengthen the military chain of command.

The mechanisms in Bill C-25 are based on the principle put forward by the Somalia commission that oversight and review mechanisms should be strengthened. Bill C-25 contains a variety of mechanisms to strengthen oversight and review and to complement other specialized mechanisms. It is these mechanisms to strengthen oversight and review which I would like to address.

Bill C-25 will establish the Canadian forces grievance board and military police complaints commission, both of which will be external and independent oversight bodies. It will establish a military police code of conduct. It will create a new requirement for the judge advocate general to review and report on the administration of military justice.

Finally, it will require that the Minister of National Defence review the provisions and operation of the National Defence Act and report to Parliament within five years of the amendments coming into force. All of these amendments will substantially enhance both accountability and transparency in the administration of military justice.

My colleague is exactly right when he said transparency is our ultimate goal. The amendments will also ensure that there is a means through which day to day decisions in the administration of military justice can be monitored and assessed.

First, let me look at the current grievance system as authorized by section 29 of the act. Today the language of section 29 does not clearly define the circumstances in which a member may submit a grievance. In addition, while the grievance process has generally been seen to be achieving its objectives, it involves too many levels of review. This leaves the perception that the process is slow and unresponsive. Also, it is perceived as being too closely linked to the chain of command and lacking any external input.

The grievance process has been under active review within the Canadian forces. It has also been the subject of observations in three recent reports. The Somalia commission recommended that the Minister of National Defence have no adjudicative role in redress of grievance matters. The Dickson advisory group recommended that the minister not be involved in grievances related to summary trials and noted that the report of the Minister of National Defence to the Prime Minister in March 1997 indicated that it was inappropriate for the minister to act as the final arbiter in grievance processes.

Bill C-25 will act upon many of the recommendations of these reports. For example, it will make three important changes to the grievance system. First, it will clarify the circumstances in which a member may submit a grievance. Second, it will establish the Canadian forces grievance board which will be external to and independent of the department and the forces. Third, it will authorize the chief of defence staff to be the final decision maker in the grievance process.

The grievance board will review prescribed categories of grievances before they are sent to the chief of defence staff. The CDS will have the option of referring any other grievance to the board. The board will provide findings and recommendations and submit them to the CDS. The CDS will not be bound by the board's findings or recommendations, but will be required to provide reasons when any findings or recommendations are not acted upon.

The grievance board will establish its own internal process and, for the purpose of conducting its tasks, will have the authority to hold hearings and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents.

Bill C-25 will require the board to file an annual report with the Minister of National Defence, who will be required to table this report in Parliament.

Bill C-25 will also create a military police complaints commission. This commission will be independent and external to the department and the forces and will have the mandate to deal with complaints from the public about the conduct of military police in their policing duties.

It will also have the mandate to deal with complaints by military police concerning improper interference by members of the forces and senior officials of the department in the conduct of military police investigations.

This commission will have the power and resources to investigate complaints and the power to conduct public hearings. It will also have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and take testimony under oath.

As is the case with independent bodies which provide similar oversight to civilian police, the complaints commission will have the authority to make findings and recommendations to the minister.

Bill C-25 will require the commission to file an annual report which will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of National Defence.

Bill C-25 will also make specific provision for a military police professional code of conduct to be established in regulations. The code of conduct will establish a clear standard of professional conduct for military police. The code of conduct, which is a feature of most Canadian civil police forces and which was recommended by the Dickson advisory group and the Somalia commission, will help to enhance both the professionalism and accountability of military police.

In addition to these important steps to improve oversight and review, Bill C-25 will also make the military justice system more open and transparent through two other new review and reporting requirements.

First, five years after Bill C-25 amendments come into effect the Minister of National Defence will be required to review the operation of the act. This review will be tabled in Parliament.

Second, the judge advocate general will be required to report annually to the minister on the administration of military justice in the Canadian forces.

These reports, in addition to those I mentioned earlier by the Canadian forces grievance board and the military police complaints commission, will enhance openness and accountability.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-25 are the most extensive in the history of the National Defence Act. They follow through on the recommendations of the Dickson advisory group and respond to those of the Somalia commission. They provide a more effective statutory framework for the operations of the department and the forces.

In terms of oversight, the amendments to the grievance process provide an open and responsive process through which members of the Canadian forces can seek review of decisions in the administration of the Canadian forces.

The amendments associated with the military police complaints commission establish a rigorous and transparent process to review military investigative activities. The new reporting requirements mandated by Bill C-25 will enhance the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight in a number of important areas.

A famous military man once said “There is no security on earth, only opportunity”. We have here an opportunity to propose and move these very specific amendments which will enhance our Canadian military. I urge all hon. members in this House to lend their unqualified support, which I am sure we will get, to these amendments.

[Toy Labelling, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this estimable place today to address this very worthisome motion.

Far be it for me to be at variance with my colleague from Thornhill, but she did mispronounce the word phthalates. She is from Toronto, and being from the upper Ottawa valley, from the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, we have our own Ottawa Valley vernacular. I would ask my hon. colleague from Thornhill to forgive me for the way we pronounce it and the way we say Toronto or the big smoke. We do not enunciate Toronto.

Having cleared up that issue, I am very pleased to address the motion before the House on phthalates in plastic toys. The potential health hazards of polyvinyl chloride or PVC in plastic toys is not a new issues. It is one that Health Canada has been involved with since the mid-1980s. Probably the member for Calgary Southeast would not remember it being brought to Health Canada in the 1980s. He was probably in diapers at that stage of his illustrious career.

I take this opportunity to provide the House with some background information on this important children's health issue and to review Health Canada's ongoing response to it.

The department has taken a strong leadership role over the past 12 years in assessing and acting upon potential PVC health risks to children. The issue of phthalates in children's products, especially a potentially hazardous phthalate known as DEHP, has been investigated by Health Canada and other foreign governmental agencies for a number of years.

In the early 1990s Health Canada took an active role in ongoing research over children's PVC products, specifically pacifiers. The department shared its concerns about DEHP and its research with the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the United States.

In 1991 Toy Manufacturers of America voluntarily decided to discontinue the use of DEHP. In early 1992 Health Canada conducted a survey to confirm the toy manufacturers' statement and found that the majority of children's products made of PVC contained only trace amounts of DEHP which were well below maximum acceptable levels. Building on this progress, Health Canada maintains contact with scientific organizations and governments around the world to obtain the latest information and research on potentially hazardous phthalates.

Last June the department investigated a Danish report indicating a potentially hazardous substance in a teething ring. Immediate tests showed no scientific evidence of DEHP in the rings. However, the department is doing further evaluations to determine the potential risk of other phthalates in these and other types of plastic toys. The testing is in line with Health Canada's policy of investigating toys or products brought to its attention as potentially dangerous. While the department is not aware of any incident in which a child has ever had an adverse reaction to phthalates, including the discontinued—

[Canada, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a very decent nation, capable of understanding, of diplomacy and of compromise. We are a very accomplished nation.

It was a Canadian who discovered insulin. It was a Canadian who invented the telephone. It was a Canadian who conceived of the emergency forces, not for war but for peace.

It was a Canadian who won two gold medals for speed skating in the Olympics.

This is not enough. We must continue to make every yesterday a vibrant and beautiful dream of happiness and every tomorrow a magnificent vision of hope. We must continue to make our voice heard clearly, distinctly and bravely.

Canada is a rare illustration that people from different backgrounds can live, learn and work alike, proud of our noble heritage, enriched by our diversity of talents and ennobled by our unity of vision. This is our responsibility. Let us—

[Students, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one of my most pleasant tasks since becoming the member of Parliament for the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has been meeting students from my riding when they come for a tour of these Parliament buildings. I had that honour today with a group of students from St. James school of Eganville. They are seated in the gallery watching today's proceedings.

It is imperative that young people such as Shawn Lavigueur see how their Canadian government works and learn more about the Canadian parliamentary system. It is incumbent upon us as members of this House to help these young men and women understand that our system is one of the best in the entire world. The future of our country will rest on their shoulders.

I want to thank the teachers responsible for arranging these field trips and giving these students a firsthand look at our Parliament. They represent our future. We must not fail them.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He has a great turn of phrase with the word “spendicitis”. But I must say that the Liberal Party has operated on that malaise called spendicitis since 1993. We have it completely and utterly under control.

I must also say that since he has a great turn of phrase there is an oxymoron that is like bitter-sweet. It must be bitter-sweet for the party opposite to know that we basically as they say have been nudged by them into controlling this wicked deficit that we inherited, $42 billion a year. We have that under control. That is the bitter part for them to swallow because we have it under control. In this current budget we are going to propose we have designated 50%—