Jan Brown

[National Library Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows my party and everybody knows which party represents the government in the House. I really feel that was a rather innocuous comment to make and I am not going to address it further.

While I recognize that the changes Bill C-26 makes are necessary I am mystified why the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not tabling other substantive legislation. This is a housekeeping bill. We were informed that his department was going to be implementing phase II of the copyright legislation. However, there seems to be some lack of clarity as to which department will be bringing this legislation forward. Regardless of which department tables this legislation, its importance should bring it to the House sooner rather than later.

As well, the Minister for Canadian Heritage has stated that he is in favour of partially privatizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Canadians are anxiously awaiting legislation that reflects these comments from the minister. As well, the minister has stated that the only reason he has not filled the vacancies on the boards of directors of his department's cultural organization is that he is awaiting a report recommending changes to the size, structure and appointment process for these boards.

This is the kind of legislation for which the Reform Party on this particular side of the House is waiting. We are anxiously awaiting legislation that reflects recommendations in that report and that starts to address some of the concerns that the Canadian taxpayers in this country are waiting for.

Therefore, the safe passage of Bill C-26 through the House as well as the areas just mentioned demand immediate action by the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. I strongly urge the government to act, thereby identifying other opportunities in the department that will save money.

Rest assured my side of the House, the Reform Party, will be there to help usher through the House any cost saving legislation.

[National Library Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the National Library Act.

This piece of legislation appears to be a housekeeping bill that makes the legal deposit provisions of the act accurately reflect the contemporary costs of texts produced today.

This debate demonstrates the willingness of my party to work with the government to implement legislation that has a positive impact on expenditure reduction. I want to state that again, expenditure reduction, because I will be addressing that particular aspect as I discuss the passage of this bill in my text today.

It has always been the mandate of this side of the House to oppose government legislation for valid reasons justified by the commitment that we made to our constituents for responsible financial management. However, at the same time we also provide constructive alternatives for the government as we present our arguments. This bill is an example of a case where we can support the government and the proposed changes to the legislation.

My office has spoken with the president of the Association of Canadian Publishers. According to that conversation there do not appear to be any concerns with this bill other than a minor cost to publishers which they have indicated presents them with little concern.

Publishers are currently able to deduct from their taxes the wholesale costs of the books which they are required to submit to the National Library.

Our previous speaker mentioned a tax credit at the retail level. This is just to reiterate that there already is an opportunity for a tax deduction of the wholesale costs. In effect, the only cost to be borne by the publisher is the opportunity cost of the sale of the book. This means that the cost to the publisher is the revenue it fails to receive on the books that it submits.

I support the intent of this bill. It addresses in effect three outdated facets of the legal deposit provisions of the National Library Act, all of which were in need of bringing into contemporary terms.

First, the government has recently been in the practice of submitting two copies of all of its publications. Bill C-26 now makes it a legislated requirement to do so. What is being done here is simply formalizing an already followed informal practice.

Second, individuals and corporations are fined under the act if they do not comply with the legal deposit provision requiring them to submit copies of their publication to the library. The fines were originally listed in the act at $150 for individuals and $2,000 for corporations should they fail to submit.

In many instances, and this has been pointed out previously, it was cheaper not to submit and pay the fine than it was to submit. In such instances clearly the fines were not effective deterrents. Bill C-26 recognizes this failure of the act and has now tied penalties to the Criminal Code summary convictions.

This is a good idea for two reasons. It increases the fines making them effective deterrents. As well, the Criminal Code is regularly updated whereas the act is not. Therefore this will have the effect of addressing the issue of fines more readily and as needed.

Third, prior to this bill a publisher was required to submit to the library only one copy of a book if the book was worth more than $50. However, given inflation most books currently cost close to that amount in any event. This bill would require publishers to submit two copies regardless of worth except when such a submission would cause an undue financial burden.

The only potential problem with the bill is the vague discussion of undue financial burden. I too express my concern that the regulations were not tabled with this bill. I would hope that when we get to committee there will further and very specific discussion.

The bill proposes to replace subsection 13(4) of the act which refers to non-compliance with any provision of the section or the regulations. The specification as to what constitutes undue financial burden will be included in the regulations and clearly understood when this bill is discussed at committee.

It is important to acknowledge that publishers which publish extremely limited editions and works of art not be required to submit two copies of the publication. The regulations must protect against causing unreasonable financial burden to the publishers.

Speaking of financial burden, at the departmental briefing on this bill it was made quite clear that by making these changes to the legal deposit provision, the National Library would not have to spend as much on acquiring copies of books. The director general of corporate policy and planning for the National Library stated that should Bill C-26 be passed the National Library could spend between $300,000 and $350,000 less on acquisitions next year. It is difficult, in fact inexcusable, not to support a measure that could save taxpayers' dollars.

Given that the library expects this bill to save it some $300,000 I will be recommending to the Canadian heritage standing committee that the government decrease the appropriations for the National Library by the amount this bill is expected to save and I would strongly urge the government to support this recommendation.

We have a tremendous opportunity to set a precedent here by passing a bill recognizing that it affects next year's appropriations. However, if the appropriations for the National Library are not decreased by this amount then this bill will have the effect of giving it a $300,000 increase.

The Minister of Finance has been asking for constructive ways to trim his budget. Here is a great opportunity to cut $300,000 from the budget of the National Library. Most important, such a cut would have absolutely no effect on the performance of the library.

While we are discussing how this bill could pay taxpayer dollars we should examine the mandate of the library, for such an investigation leads us to the conclusion that there are also other ways to save money with the National Library.

In these times of fiscal restraint we should revisit the wisdom of having both a National Archives and a National Library. It is quite possible that the mandates of these facilities overlap to some extent and that the removal of such duplication of services would streamline their efficiency and save this government even more money.

I can assure the government that this kind of proactive legislation would meet with hearty approval from my side of the House.

While I recognize that the changes Bill C-26 makes are necessary-

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill this afternoon. I say that because it gives me an opportunity to address the House on a bill which affects the very group on whom we place great hope for our future, our youth.

I am going to approach the bill from three advantage points: as a parent, as a women previously in pre-doctoral studies, and as an elected representative; but first let me set the stage in terms of our current employment scene because it is inextricably linked to the financial security of our students.

It is alarming to know that Canada is described as a country of structural unemployment. This means that after each of the recessions experienced over the past 20 years unemployment has declined but overall has remained higher than before each of the recessions.

The International Monetary Fund has placed the blame squarely on generous unemployment benefits which discourage job hunting; greater unionization, centralized wage bargaining and high minimum wages which reduce labour market flexibility; and high non-wage costs which discourage hiring. These are the realities of our job market, not a promising set of circumstances by any stretch. Yet this is what awaits those with high hopes, those who graduate from our universities and colleges and enter this jobless market.

The effects of this situation spill over into summer job opportunities, jobs which mean financial survival for most students. Recent figures show an alarming trend in summer employment opportunities. Current unemployment rates for 15 to 24 year olds remain at 1993 figures, that is 18.1 per cent. This is up from 17.9 per cent in 1992, 14.5 per cent in 1991, and 10.5 per cent in 1990. Students have expressed outrage and now many feel apathetic toward a system of diminishing options.

This bill is not only timely. It is absolutely necessary to meet the needs of students in a recovery where there are few jobs, little choice and scarce money. Bill C-28 contains some positive elements and as a parent I commend the government for recognizing that our present system for educational funding is outdated.

Like most families with children in university, mine had to find a balance between parental financial support and other sources to sustain a university education. Our children have worked part time to augment their costs and until they reached 21 years of age this was a satisfactory arrangement. However it was our family's choice beyond that point that our children looked to extending that support network to include government student loans.

It should be noted that it has become increasingly expensive to sustain a reasonable standard of living while attending university. Even with the combination of parental support, a part time job and a student's loan, financial worries remain a consideration and a burden to most students. Our children were no exception.

I recognize like most Canadians that in 1994 our colleges and universities are in a state of crisis. Nobody agrees with this more than administrations, faculty, staff and students either attending or looking forward to attend university or college.

Here are some examples of the problems that post-secondary institutions face today. Federal transfers to provinces fail to keep up with the rate of inflation. Tuition fee increases are inflexible and capped at low levels. There is an ever increasing demand by the public for access to institutions of higher learning. University and college staff unions are demanding and

winning continuing wage increases that are higher than those in the private sector.

The Canada student loans program or CSLP is an important program. I am pleased the government recognizes that it needs reforming to make it more effective. However it is unfortunate that the government sees the CSLP as the only problem with Canada's post-secondary educational system.

Any student loans program should preserve and enhance the quality and accessibility of post-secondary education, but Bill C-28 fails to do so to any meaningful extent. Despite significant changes in post-secondary education and its clientele, student assistance programs have remained relatively unchanged since coming into existence in 1964-65. Although joint studies of student aid needs have been undertaken on occasion they have not resulted in any formal agreement among federal and provincial governments for a new a comprehensive students assistance program.

In the five-year period between 1988-89 and 1992-93 the university tuition fee price index for Canadians increased by 58 per cent. This means that during that five-year period the adjusted cost increase to a Canadian student was 58 per cent. When one factors in the cost of living adjustment it is easy to see why students are clamouring so loudly about increased costs of education.

During that same time period there was no commensurate increase in loans for students to access. Students were expected to pay substantially increased costs. Yet they were provided with no opportunity to access more funds. As a result more students took jobs to pay for their courses. The effect of this has been to increase the average length of study to five years for what was once a four-year degree program. Because the degree takes five years the student's gross costs increase. This means a student is required to access yet more loan support.

In effect by allowing costs to increase in this manner without increasing access to loans, the government increases its cost to itself. When students are in the system longer they take up more resources. When their loans are larger they are more inclined to default given the repayment system of the past. Ultimately the decision not to increase student loans cost the government more than giving the loans would have done.

The best proposal in the bill is to increase by 57 per cent the limit on the loans to students. Interestingly the increase to 57 per cent on loan limits was a recommendation made in a study commissioned by the department of the secretary of state in 1990. However the study made 13 recommendations and this is only one of the 13 recommendations that the government is implementing. Even more intriguing, the government is choosing to implement some proposals that were not recommended by the study at all.

The government says that it is interested in hearing constructive ideas to help it do its job. However it seems content to ignore constructive suggestions commissioned by the government from independent non-political organizations and paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. It ignores them unless the ideas fit with its preplanned agendas. These are often developed in the back room with little attention paid to the realities facing Canadian families.

One of the proposals in the legislation which does not come from the government study is a plan to provide grants to meet the exceptional cost of women students in doctoral studies. I should remind the House that the study of the secretary of state made no recommendations for any grant or loans to women in doctoral studies. For that matter, it made no recommendations for any grants or loans whatsoever that discriminate on the basis of gender.

The wording of the legislation suggests that women have to endure more or exceptional costs as doctoral students. However I believe that women do not incur any more exceptional cost as doctoral students than men do. Many of us have families and mortgage considerations at this point in our careers. When I was a masters candidate and a Ph.D. candidate I did not incur any cost that would not have been equally carried by any of my male colleagues.

The intent of the legislation must not be to redress exceptional costs that women face but to redress the fact that there are limited post-graduate opportunities for mid-career professionals in Canada. Our current programs are inflexible, lacking creativity, and most certainly do not respond to the private sector needs of advanced training and skills requirements.

As well an attempt to redress the statistical difference in the larger numbers of male candidates over female candidates should not be accomplished in such a blatantly discriminatory fashion. The numbers of women in post-secondary institutions have been increasing steadily without violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not understand why there is such focus on affirmative action tactics when in my view they are completely unnecessary.

In fact the number of women enrolled full time at universities increased by 79 per cent between 1975 and 1990, while during the same time period the number of men increased by only 19 per cent. Presently women constitute at least 50 per cent of full time students in both colleges and universities and 54 per cent of all part time university students. In 1990-91 women constituted 55 per cent of students at the college level, 53 per cent of full time undergraduates, 45 per cent of masters graduates, and 34 per cent of Ph.D. candidates.

It is clear that women are very well represented in our colleges and universities. They have managed to do so without affirmative action. The implication that women are unable to compete adequately at the doctoral level without special assistance is quite unacceptable to me. I am sure this assumption is one that I and most women and men reject. There is ample evidence to suggest that women can compete fairly on an even playing field at the doctoral level in their studies.

In 1975, 23.9 per cent of all doctoral students were women. In 1993 the 35 per cent figure that I mentioned demonstrates this. This is an increase of 11.1 per cent in 18 years. It is a healthy increase. Yet we must do more to ensure that these numbers grow by ensuring opportunities for both men and women who reach this level of their academic careers.

What is needed is a student assistance program that allocates funds to students on the basis of need. When need is the sole criterion, gender fails to be a consideration. Everyone may apply for a loan regardless of their gender. They must only be able to demonstrate a need for the loan.

When this bill goes to committee I am certain the House will see the wisdom in removing such an uninspiring and discriminatory program and will include male doctoral students also.

I stated earlier that I would also speak as an elected representative and offer helpful alternatives to deal with the crisis our students in post-secondary institutions are facing.

The unemployment rate is still 11 per cent. The government seems content to undertake little action and to let it remain at that high level. It was reported in this weekend's Financial Post that the unemployment rate for 18 to 26-year olds is close to 18 per cent. Given these staggering figures, it is clear that students will have problems getting jobs and repaying their loans.

The Canadian Federation of Students, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and the federal government's commissioned study are all recommending income contingent repayment programs. This legislation only waves a hand in the direction of this recommendation by introducing pilot projects. It should put its fist firmly down and introduce the program in its entirety across the country.

As well, the government has spoken of its commitment to quality education in Canada. It has a wonderful opportunity to show Canada the depth of its concern. It could make the transfer payments for education to the provinces indexed with the annual rate of inflation.

What is also needed today is leadership that will establish a national standard of post-secondary education in a flexible environment. More and more Canadian businesses are introducing flexible work hours for their employees. What is needed in the educational system are equally flexible study programs that meet the needs of professionals who are attempting to re-enter the post-secondary education system.

What we need today in Canada is not a government that simply looks at short term solutions to problems. We need a government that cares enough to look to the future in order to provide solutions that will guarantee long term, high quality education in Canada. This government should appreciate all of the ideas shared in this debate.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity today to be positive.

We can show the youth of our country that we do care and that we are willing to make the decisions necessary to benefit them in the long run. At the same time, we can show Canadians that we are listening, that we not only hear but also care about their anguish and anger.

We have an opportunity today to take all the pain, all the frustration and all the hopes and expectations and act substantively. What Canadians want from their members of Parliament is action and this motion from my side of the House responds to the expectations of Canadians.

The members opposite can also show today that they have heard and that they do care. I know that they do. They can support our motion. It appears that it will take further effort to get the members opposite to come to understand the problem of youth crime in the same way that we do.

Given this, I intend today to make an argument for change. My colleagues have provided many constructive arguments for ways to change the Young Offenders Act. We are simply proposing more vigorously to reform the criminal justice system and, most especially, bring change to the Young Offenders Act.

Despite contrary voices there has been an increase in youth crime and there are a myriad of contributing factors to this increase. We have heard about those today. It is clear that the lack of effectiveness of the YOA is one of those contributing factors, but I also want to point out that the Canadian perception of an increase in youth crime is not a false perception. Some of the members across the floor are quick to dismiss any talk of rising crime statistics as fearmongering or some kind of knee-jerk response and a reaction perhaps to isolated instances.

I will provide information a little later showing just how wrong minded so many of the members across the floor are. I ask them to raise their heads, to listen to Canadians and then they too will appreciate the magnitude of this problem.

The members of my party are attempting to substantively address the problem. During the election campaign, on the doorsteps, at town hall meetings, during public debates and in the coffee shops people were talking about the Young Offenders Act and victims' rights. We heard them and we promised we would bring those concerns, the concerns of Canadians, with us to Ottawa. And we are living up to that promise. Unfortunately, the government has done nothing to date but we hear good things in the offing. To date it has done nothing about the Young Offenders Act and criminal justice reform. Promises are made. Yes, indeed. Soon, we are told and we continue to wait.

I know how concerned Canadians have become because on Mothers Day I attended the rally in Calgary that was held simultaneously with Edmonton and between those two rallies over 4,000 people came together to voice their concerns about the increase in violent crime by youths and the commensurate

lack of judicial action to deter criminal activity. Believe me, it was painful to hear their stories.

When the Young Offenders Act was introduced it may have been well intended but it has failed miserably. After the act came into force young offenders quickly came to understand that they could commit crimes and that if they were caught the punishment they would get would no worse than a slap on the wrist.

Unfortunately young offenders have become very clever. They know that when committing a crime their chances of being caught are very slim. Worse than that even if they are caught they know that their names will not be published, they know their records will be expunged five years after their sentence is finished. They know that the maximum sentence they can receive in youth court is three years. They know that the courts do not even like to try young offenders in adult court. In fact, in 1990-91 less than 1 per cent of violent cases were even transferred to adult court. They know that they can return to the community without undergoing any treatment whatsoever. Simply put, they know they can continue to get away with it.

Those of us who herald this debate have been called alarmists by many people in this House today and I wish to dispel that misunderstanding. I want to bring the debate even a little closer to home with some chilling statistics and we have had a lot of those thrown out today.

According to the MacKenzie Institute in Calgary, between 1988 and 1991 the violent crime rate among youth increased by 179 per cent. When those people rallied on Mothers Day they were not reacting in an alarmist fashion to a make believe problem. They were reacting to their heartfelt knowledge that the instances of violent crimes committed in Calgary and elsewhere by youth are increasing at an alarming rate. As well, not only is there a statistical increase in youth crimes but a Mount Royal criminologist, John Winterdyk, is also concerned that the nature of the crimes committed by young people seem to be more random, more violent and more senseless.

On that unhappy topic I have further statistics to corroborate Mr. Winterdyk's concerns. Of the 135,348 youths charged in criminal code incidents in 1992, 15 per cent were charged with violent crimes. This proportion was up 10.5 per cent from 1988. We should be very concerned that there was a 5 per cent increase in only four years. As well, the number of youths charged in violent incidents increased at a faster rate than the number of adults charged with crimes of violence. From 1988 to 1992 the average increase in adult violent crimes was 85 per cent whereas the average annual increase in youth violent crimes was 14 per cent. This demonstrates that as a society not only are we becoming more violent but that in particular more youths are becoming more violent more quickly.

Madam Speaker, I do thank you for the time allotted me today. I have appreciated very much, along with other members, the opportunity to speak on this matter.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated everything the hon. member said to us this afternoon.

I was at the criminal justice rally in Calgary last weekend and had an opportunity to spend time with the families of victims. I spoke to several of them. One in particular was a new Canadian. Her son had just died of a gunshot wound 10 days before, a crime committed by a young offender. Her son is no longer with her. She has no husband here. There was just herself and her daughter.

I have a question for this mother in Calgary about some of the content of the hon. member's presentation. The member mentioned that we needed a multi-disciplinary approach. This afternoon the Minister of Justice talked about a two-track approach. It seems to me there is some confusion either in the semantics or in understanding exactly where the government's intentions lie.

We have a mother who is asking for action. She is looking for answers. She no longer has her son. And we have a government response that somehow is not saying the same thing to me.

I wish the hon. member would respond to those comments and tell us exactly what is the difference between the multi-disciplinary approach that she spoke of and the two-track approach the Minister of Justice mentioned in his remarks earlier this afternoon.

[Parole, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister's answer, Thompson was out of jail on a day pass when he committed murder.

I ask specifically, will the minister guarantee that in his proposed changes to the criminal justice system he will protect innocent victims of crimes like these, those who are left behind, those who are being stalked by convicted killers, by tightening up the eligibility criteria for the granting of day passes and denying them parole or is it going to be continuing the parole as usual?

[Parole, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and is inspired by Helen Leadley, a constituent of Calgary Southeast.

Robert Paul Thompson stabbed to death the daughter of a constituent of Calgary Southeast. He also stabbed and beat her friend. He plea bargained to second degree murder and is serving a life sentence. While in prison he took a nurse hostage and stabbed two guards. He continues to be a violent offender, harassing the victims' families. He is eligible for parole in 1995.

Can the minister guarantee that in his review of the parole system he will implement the necessary changes to ensure that killers like these who continue to threaten the families of their victims stay in jail and off our streets?

[Chantal Tittley, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to congratulate one of my constituents for her outstanding volunteer efforts. Calgary leads the country in its volunteer spirit. You simply have to look at the tremendous success of the 1988 Winter Olympics to see this.

Mrs. Chantal Tittley demonstrates why Calgarians are such generous volunteers. Mrs. Tittley has recently returned from Peru where she volunteered for CESO. She identified products in the agriculture and handicraft areas with potential for Canadian markets. She also established a long and short term strategy for introducing these products to Canada.

Mrs. Tittley is the kind of Canadian ambassador who makes other countries look to us with envy. We have many people in Canada who are willing to share their skills and expertise to help other countries develop. Through international ventures such as these, Canada can help developing countries become economically self-sufficient.

I am proud that a person from Calgary Southeast has volunteered for such an important international venture.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how appropriate tonight that the Reform Party should have the last word.

Flying east to west the southern landscapes of Canada offer a panoramic view of fields and farms stretching to the horizon in a richly textured patchwork. This rich and productive farmland injects a massive boost to Canada's general economic activity and provides the most basic of all human needs, food.

Yet, agriculture remains a virtually invisible industry scarcely noticed by the media when more fashionable news captures the interests of consumers. Issues that do enter the public arena are treated as the preserve of an emotional special interest group or a sad but quaint relic of other times.

Agriculture in Canada in reality is a vital and integrated industry, including primary production, processing, marketing and delivery of a final product to the consumer. It remains a fundamental part of the economy and society affecting in subtle ways the development of our social policy in Canada and a changing economic agenda.

Three decades ago Canadians spent 25 per cent of their budget on food. Today we spend much less, 13 cents of every dollar and we get better quality and more consistent supplies than virtually any overseas country.

There is an established pattern of consumer demand that suggests stability for the short term but emerging trends may reshape food production in the long term. To anticipate changes in demand we need to know what already exists, what could be and what can be made to be. Managing what exists today was yesterday's business. Our task is to plan and manage what tomorrow may become.

Consider the following. In present day agriculture the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer. The system seems to consider production and not consumption as the object of all industry and commerce.

As a trading nation Canada must address the fact that the global neighbourhood is a place of change. A neighbour of today may not be there tomorrow. Where is the Bloc?

Globalization really boils down to a definition that means jobs and money now go in search of skill and income levels regardless of distance and borders. The production process takes place over thousands of kilometres and is co-ordinated by instant communication.

Now how will these global changes affect our current levels of domestic production? What kind of planning process needs to be in place to address the future needs of not only Canada but the world? What kind of trading agreements will need to be negotiated with countries such as China? Our current government policies do not give serious consideration to these issues. They regulate for today with little thought for tomorrow.

In the year 2000 earth's inhabitants are expected to be 6.4 billion and 10 billion by 2030. Before the world reaches population stability food demands could be three times today's level, but arable land is expected to increase by the year 2000 only to the extent of 4 per cent worldwide. So traditional methods of improving crop yields will be hard pressed to make up the difference between population and farm land growth.

In Canada the government has had a unique pervasiveness and integrated relationship with agriculture because of the highly disbursed nature of farming and the limited size of the individual enterprise. Because of the importance of a strong agricultural sector to the overall competitiveness of the economy, it is imperative that Canada develop an industry that takes advantage of its specific natural and human resources.

Practically speaking, consumers eventually get what they want. Just how quickly and efficiently that happens measures a supplier's success. How readily Canada anticipates and responds to emerging demands will become an important yardstick determining her competitive advantage or lack thereof. And so while the world waits, Canadian consumers also present a very real and current challenge. They create demand and they consume the product.

About 90 per cent of the people who are here now will be here at the turn of the century, I am very happy to say. Canada like many other countries is approaching zero population growth. Beginning in about the year 2010 if no dramatic change in fertility or immigration occur our population will start to decline. This implies weak domestic opportunities for growth and increasing competition at all levels.

As well, there are growing concerns for food safety which places further pressure on government as well as distributors as consumers become more aware of the food chain. It is an irony of the food industry that it takes a lot of work to be natural.

Opportunities exist to attempt new communication approaches to more effectively manage the public's worry about food safety. There are implications for increased costs to the consumer. Government too needs to accept responsibility for developing regulations that assure producers remain competitive within this food safety conscious environment.

Regulations have been mentioned prior to my presentation tonight. They are an insidious form of hidden taxation and any assessment of the tax environment in Canada should also consider its regulatory climate. It is complex with many departments unable to work independently of one another because of the current structure. Can you imagine implementing even the slightest regulatory change when regulatory amendments have to go through 80 to 90 offices before they can be gazetted. It is taxpayers' money that continues to support this huge monolithic structure.

Government now has an opportunity to encourage initiative and innovation to meet changing expectations, heightened competition, industrial evolution and risk. Its responsibility becomes one that must not limit innovation by overregulating. As well the regulatory process has to be streamlined to allow for timely and effective change to meet the needs of the marketplace.

How do we become market responsive? We know the characteristics of the consumers we wish to serve. We know the emerging reality of increased competition in the marketplace and of the new global trading environment regulated by GATT rules and the NAFTA alliance.

NAFTA raises questions of basic rights and obligations regarding issues related to sanitation and vital sanitary measures for agriculture. Technical standards such as these are based upon scientific principles and risk assessment.

We understand also that distortions to world markets and prices for commodities have been the result of subtle but invasive farm policies worldwide. And the cost of protection is getting higher and higher.

Currently a number of sectors of the agriculture industry are production driven under supply management regulations. This continuation of such regulation does not bode well for the consumer who seeks choice in an open market environment. It is time to redefine supply management and to decide what Canadians want in terms of farm policy.

To achieve this, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food should be asking how to achieve an orderly marketing system in Canada, how to handle imports, how to harmonize the current quotas given to producers in order to shield consumers from short market disasters. The standing committee has been hesitant to date to look into these matters. Why?

We know that a farm policy is no substitute for realistic rural policy. Guaranteed prices do not prevent bankruptcies, and being self-sufficient does not ensure food security.

To those who remain in the House tonight and to those on the agriculture committee, it is time to be courageous in leadership and to demonstrate that development of new opportunities demand a new approach, and then go and do it. It is no longer enough to follow where the path is going.

It is time to go where there is no path and blaze our own trail.

[Children In Bosnia, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wrote this because of the plight and tragedy of Bosnian children and I wrote this because I am a mother. It is called "Picture This":

Picture this Little stories, horror of the war zone on the late night news. Picture this Bosnia's joyless children, a reminder of war's human face. Picture this Small sad voices surge to wild cries exploding in a rush of flesh and steel and bone. Picture this Pillows wet with acid tears, cameos of babyhood, a grieving reminder. Picture this Tiny broken bodies languish in therapy crippled limbs, mindless thoughts, blistered experience. Picture this The sweet and precious face of your child and surely we all wanted to help