Bonnie Brown

[Research Laboratories, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that pure research is the foundation of the innovation necessary for knowledge based economic activity, the kind of activity we want here in Canada. We also know that pure research takes place in laboratories.

What is the Minister of Industry doing to address the serious problem of deterioration in our university laboratories?

[Canada Pension Plan, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in February when the federal and provincial finance ministers reached an agreement to modify the Canada pension plan they solved a problem that should have been tackled 10 years ago.

They responded to the priorities expressed by Canadians during the consultations and as a result all retired CPP pensioners and those over 65 as of December 31, 1997 are not affected by any of the changes. Those currently receiving disability benefits, survivor benefits or combined benefits also are not affected. All benefits under the CPP will remain fully indexed to inflation and the age of retirement remains the same.

Canadians have had their confidence in the CPP restored. Now all Canadians can count on the CPP to be part of their retirement income in future. This is another example of a successful federation at work.

[Science And Technology, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

It is recognized that research, technology, information and knowledge are now the driving forces of economic growth. What is the government doing to ensure that Canada is leading this parade as Canadians march together toward the 21st century?

[Breast Cancer, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, older Canadian women are encouraged by their doctors to get a mammogram every second year because mammography screening is the best technique we have for the early detection of breast cancer.

Good mammography requires high quality mammographic x-ray equipment, highly trained technicians and qualified radiologists to read the results.

In Canada there is a voluntary accreditation program available to those responsible for mammography units, but after five years of the voluntary program's existence only 37 per cent of these units have passed the standards.

This is not good enough. We need national standards for quality assurance in mammography. Canadian women need to know that the mammography unit they visit is accredited or certified and meets the highest possible quality assurance standards. Canadian women deserve nothing less.

[Donovan Bailey, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, more congratulations are due to Donovan Bailey, the world's fastest man. He has been awarded the Lou Marsh trophy as Canada's outstanding athlete of 1996.

He edged out a who's who of candidates vying for this prestigious honour, all of whom had their own outstanding achievements in their respective sports. It certainly says a great deal about the athletic talent we possess in Canada when one has to win two Olympic gold medals and set a world record to edge out the competition for the athlete of the year award.

Without a doubt his physical performance was tremendous, but his athletic skill was truly complemented by the grace he displayed in victory.

Donovan Bailey not only excels in sprinting, he sets an outstanding example to the youth of Canada. Congratulations, Donovan.

[Petitions, December 12th, 1996]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, calls on the government to proceed with amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired truly reflects the severity of this crime.

[Petitions, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions which have been duly certified by the clerk and forwarded to me by the residents of Oakville-Milton.

The petitioners call on the government to conduct a public inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the judiciary and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of judges with ties to credit granting institutions.

[Food And Drugs Act, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support Bill C-309 proposed by my colleague, the member for Burlington.

The debate this morning seems to be revolving around the question of responsibility; that is, who is responsible when a person dies of anaphylactic shock based on a food allergy. The proposer of the bill is suggesting that the responsibility be charged.

I do not think there is any attempt to say that the person with the allergy or that person's parents are trying to shun their responsibility at all. The problem is that in many cases they cannot accept the responsibility fully because they do not have the tools with which to exercise that responsibility.

This bill is simply an attempt to give individuals in our society the tools with which to solve their problem in a responsible way. To that end we have support in the community of 100,000 people who have suggested that indeed they want the collective responsibility of the Government of Canada to be shown through some legislation that would require people who serve food for a living to equip the people with allergies with the information they need.

It is a moderate proposal. The bill is only asking the owners of restaurants to ensure that servers in their restaurants take the questions asked to them by customers seriously. It does not require that every server have all the information about all the ingredients of the food to be served. Rather, it requires that they understand it is a serious question and that they refer the customer to the designated person in the restaurant who has the required information. In all cases it would be only one designated employee. It would be the ingredients based on chemicals and it would not reveal the trade secrets of the merchant. There is no obligation to give amounts, just the content.

A previous speaker asked about statistics. Statistics show that 50 people a year die but there are other victims of these situations when they arise. For example, a responsible restaurateur would want to have such a system in place because the uproar in a restaurant is very distressing to his other clients who are sitting at other tables and to his staff. To be a responsible employer and protect his staff and try to maintain his good reputation with his other customers, it would seem to me that a system, a methodology that would solve this problem quickly and give people the information they want would be advantageous to all.

Of course we have to think about the families of these victims, the secondary victims. One cannot explain the depth of upset when a surprising event like this takes place.

The odd thing about allergies is that not everybody who has one knows. Therefore the onset of an allergic reaction is sometimes a surprise to the victim. Those people who have had odd reactions to medications have experienced this sort of thing.

We know that 35 per cent to 60 per cent of Canadians are avoiding certain foods because of medical reasons. They are acting responsibly once they know.

In summary, this bill deserves support for some basic reasons. We have this ever increasing phenomena of allergies in our society, and 100,000 Canadians are asking that this government fulfil its responsibility by a piece of legislation that would provide the information necessary to the victims.

[Child Poverty, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if when we utter the words "children are our most precious resource" and then do not face the statistic that over 1.4 million Canadian children live in poverty, then our words become empty and meaningless.

It is not just a statistic. It is a tragic human reality with lasting repercussions. We know that the effects of poverty on children are significant and long term. We know that such children have more risk factors and fewer supports.

It is not a simple problem in need of a simple solution. It is a complex crisis that requires comprehensive intervention on a number of fronts with a wide range of initiatives. We need to listen to the suggestions of all the experts: academics, administrators and front line workers.

It is time that all members from all parties assumed a collective leadership role to move forward with concrete programs to eradicate child poverty. Let us give meaning to our words and let us build a path to a better way of life for our nation's future, our children.

[Speech From The Throne, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to compliment the first speaker of the two. He made it very clear to us and described in detail the needs of some of his constituents in the coastal communities of British Columbia.

As a member who comes from Ontario who has had brief visits to British Columbia it is good for me to hear a member from that part of the world describe these things in great detail. In so doing he is educating all of us in our responsibilities. The member had the wisdom to put price tags on some of the things his people at home needed. I found that description an honest presentation of the needs of the people of British Columbia. It was in stark contrast to the criticism that followed on the government's movements with Bombardier and the criticism of SNC Lavalin.

The member and the speaker previous to him implied that the government's dealings with Bombardier and SNC Lavalin were related only to politics. They failed to recognize that those two corporations are tremendous Canadian companies. As the Minister of Industry said the other day, the Government of Canada is backing a winner in the world of aerospace when it backs Bombardier and all governments around the world lucky enough to have aerospace industries provide subsidies to them.

In SNC Lavalin we have one of the greatest engineering companies in the world. It is highly regarded by its colleagues in the private sector because it is leading the charge of the Canadian private sector into the markets of China which is where some of our subsequent wealth in future years will come from. Therefore we should be encouraging that company, not berating it in the House of Commons.

Both previous speakers accused the governing party of old style politics. I suggest they have given a demonstration of old style politics. They have come to Ottawa to say this is what I need to take back home and do not give anything to anybody else who is not from my community or my province or my region. That is the kind of regionalism that is divisive.

It is perfectly legitimate to express the needs of your communities. That is what I want to hear. But I do not want to hear criticisms of other communities, other corporations, other provinces that are doing the same thing in order to build the federation as a whole. That is old style politics, coming to Ottawa and asking what can I grab, what can I take home?

My questions to those speakers are: What are they bringing to the federation? Which shared Canadian values are-