Jan Brown

[Product Packaging, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has put forward a motion which I believe all of us here can support at least in principle. I acknowledge each of you being here at this late hour tonight talking about food and I am very pleased to be speaking to this motion.

The motion recognizes that there are changes coming in consumer preference regarding the packaging of food and beverage products. These changes address the changing mindset in the marketplace. Combined with food safety concerns, Canadians are now more health conscious and selective. Canadians scrutinize the appearance, the quality as well as the labels of food and beverage products. As people tighten their belts they are increasingly paying attention to food prices. Ultimately this is the single most important factor to consider before purchase.

The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada have been polling grocery buying since 1987. They approached people buying groceries with the following question: "When you are buying a product for the first time from the supermarket or grocery store, what kind of information would you be sure to look for on the label of a new food product that you were buying for the first time?"

For every year that the study has been conducted from 1987 through to 1993 consumers have answered with unswerving consistency. They most want to see the list price. The second most desired information is the printing of best-before dates. The polling showed that cooking instructions and ingredients came in third and fourth place respectively.

This polling is only a snapshot of what consumers want on a more global basis, but it does show a consistent interest over six years for the appearance of best-before dates on packaged product. This demonstrates there is consumer support for and interest in this information.

The marketplace is where the consumer has economic influence to bring about change. However for companies to provide this information costs would have to be incurred. Special encoding machines have to be bought or slight modifications will have to be made to the existing machinery. Traditionally companies are loathe to increase their cost of production if they do not believe that there is going to be any basic positive economic spin-off.

In this case it has not been made clear to the companies that the printing of this information would increase the saleability of a product and that is something we need to consider in our debate on this topic. In supporting this motion we can help consumers get their message across to the processors and manufacturers if we give consideration to that element.

It is interesting to note that some companies are voluntarily putting this information on their products. One of these companies is Pepsi-Cola. What I am about to say is definitely not an endorsement of Pepsi-Cola. However Pepsi has recognized the need for better, more accurate labelling on their products. They realize that Pepsi drinkers want to know how long their Pepsis will keep the fizz fresh. To meet this consumer demand Pepsi announced last week that it is going to be printing on all its products what it calls a freshness date, so watch that fizz. The date will be clearly and legibly stamped on the product and it will include the day, the month and the year.

This motion is an adequate response to one of the recommendations made by the health protection branch in 1993. It published a review of the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act entitled "A Strategic Direction for Change". This review was comprehensive and as such the recommendation that it be put forward came as a result of thoughtful review. We always need to consider that those particular reports contain nuggets of information that will lead us in the right direction. However we always have to look at that end user which is the consumer.

It stated that consumers expect the food label to provide basic information about the contents of the food, who made it and its shelf life in clear, understandable language that is easy to read, and we heard this from my hon. colleagues prior to my presentation tonight. This report also confirmed the need for best-before dates when it stated the main issues for consumers emerging from the consultation was a lack of ingredient information for many foods, the content and understandability of the ingredient list, the understandability of claims, and the need for best-before dating on more foods.

This report goes on in greater detail about best-before dates. There was extensive interest from consumers regarding the extension of date marking to all foods both for packed on dates and best-before dates.

The Consumers Association of Canada advocated a date of manufacture. This organization also supported a durable life date for products with a shelf life of greater than 90 days in the case of low acid foods and hermetically sealed containers and refrigerated foods.

I wonder how many of us have purchased bags of hermetically sealed foods only to find they are really quite questionable in terms of freshness when they are opened.

Over all, although legibility was very important, the location of the information on the label was not a priority. In some cases providing information elsewhere on the label was acceptable.

Even the food industry representatives conceded the importance of consumer information and generally support such current requirements as the ingredient listing on prepackaged foods and best-before dating.

Having said that, the food industry does have some concerns and legitimately so. First, it is not clear which products will be included under this motion and I would ask the hon. member to give some consideration to that as he goes forward in this debate on the next reading.

The report by the health protection branch stated that the extension of requirements for a durable life date to all foods was not generally supported by industry. They would prefer a voluntary approach rather than a legislated one. Interestingly the requirement for a durable life date given to food is a routine measure in European countries.

The industry cite cost, wasted product, and the need for consumer education as reasons to oppose mandatory best-before dates. This motion would apply it seems most easily to retail dry packaged goods. However as we all know these are not the only ones that are in the marketplace.

Like the speaker before me I too did some consultation but I spoke to some of my industry colleagues in Alberta who do not necessarily deal with dried packaged goods to determine what they might think of this motion because they are in the processing and manufacturing side of things.

The concern of industry members from the Alberta potato industry is with the application of the best-before date. They are concerned about the extent to which this motion would apply to fresh produce.

Presently they too are investigating the use of packed on dates as an attempt to satisfy the consumer demand for information on freshness. When you look at bags of potatoes and sometimes they are a bit soft or there is mushy stuff inside the bag it would be really helpful to see a packed on date on those bags.

Further when it comes to meat products, regulation becomes quite tricky. It is important that if we improve measures that they apply equally to all areas and that regulatory compliance is not overly complex. We see ourselves caught up so often in the food industry with regulations that are built on other regulations and they interact and overlap with other departments and it becomes really quite self-defeating.

As I have stated, I support this motion. It is clear that consumers want best-before and expiration dates to be printed clearly and legibly on the outside of product packaging in a non-encoded fashion. This is driven by a well-founded need for better information to be provided to consumers. This reflects the fact that consumers are better educated about health related issues and as a result of this more people are paying attention to what they eat and from where they are getting their food.

I have also mentioned some concerns that the industry has put forward. We have to pay attention to the consumers' interest but we must also try to accommodate the concerns of the processors and manufacturer. When we construct regulations we should ensure that the printing of this information is based on a sound business decision, giving consideration to the marketplace and the consumer. We have to give consideration to the cost of the machinery needed for encoding, which is an additional cost of production.

If the cost of production does not increase then the cost that is passed on to the consumer will be kept to a minimum and ultimately this is what we want.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing the comments of the hon. member across the floor, especially when he talks about the have provinces of Canada and telling everyone here today that Alberta is one of those.

It is wonderful to come from a have province. But we are going through one of the most painful periods in our history right now as we have a deficit reduction program that affects every man, woman and child in Alberta.

I am very concerned about the fact that feel good money is going to a province such as Quebec. There is no vision within that province that includes all of Canada. It is very well defined within their own borders for them.

It was interesting for the hon. member to have drawn an analogy between this feel good money that will be going to Quebec at all costs just to keep them and embrace them. I would love it if they could make the choice for themselves to stay in this wonderful country of ours.

I am totally opposed to that $25 million support for the CBC. I would like the hon. member to explain to me how he can in all good faith support the spending authority when there is basically no plan attached to it. It is just a carte blanche gift of spending. I really would like him to comment on that.

[Bank Of Montreal, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Canadian company that is taking a leading role in human resource development.

The Bank of Montreal is the first company outside of the United States to receive the Catalyst award. This award recognizes companies that implement successful and meaningful employment programs.

The bank has made big strides in a short period of time to bring job equity to the workplace. It has increased its number of female executives from 9 per cent to 13 per cent. It has also increased the number of females in senior management from 13 per cent to 17 per cent.

What is remarkable is that this has been done without reverse discrimination or affirmative action programs. It adopted flexible work programs to meet the personal and professional needs of all its employees.

The Bank of Montreal has shown how fair mindedness when offering opportunity results in competent and committed employees in the workplace. I salute the Bank of Montreal.

[Justice, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, tragic circumstances in my riding will now haunt a Calgary family forever.

A cold-blooded murder, apparently premeditated, tells a story that in Canada is becoming all too common. Something must be done as Canadians everywhere are demanding major criminal justice reforms.

The chairman of the justice committee stated on March 23 that the justice system should be more lenient toward first degree murderers. He suggested that the eligibility for parole be reduced from 25 years to 15.

My constituent died as a result of a shotgun blast to the back at point-blank range. Why should there be any leniency in a case like this? How can such a change, as suggested by the Liberals, make our streets safer?

It is time to strengthen parole mechanisms, not to weaken them. Despite what the Liberals want, I can categorically say that Canadians do not want leniency at this cost. Convicted killers indeed have a place: off our streets and behind bars.

[Publishing Industry, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the sale of Ginn Publishing Inc. was a bungled deal. The issue will not go away. The sale has become the litmus test of the government's commitment to parliamentary reform and to an open parliamentary process.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage stated yesterday that he had no objection to an investigation by a parliamentary standing committee.

The Liberals speak of an honest and open government but the matter has been discussed in committee and government members have thwarted any opposition attempts for such an investigation. It is easy for the minister to call for an investigation at committee when there is no follow-through for such an investigation.

This government has broken its commitment to an honest and open government over and over. It will not allow this investigation. We saw today it even invoked closure. What kind of open government is this?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my hon. colleague's comments and his presentation in the House tonight. There are several points I would make. I ask my colleague if he would care to respond to the points I am going to bring forward, one of which is clarity of purpose.

It seems to me that anything we would do in the House of Commons would always have a clarity of purpose and that we would always know, by having defined that clarity of purpose, where we were going.

We heard earlier from the side of the House from which I am speaking that perhaps it was personal self-interest that motivated some of the comments in today's discussions by the government side. Indeed those members mobilized themselves extremely well in terms of putting the bill forward, hastily I might add.

When we have a clarity of purpose it is only the beginning of a process. I would like my hon. colleague to comment. Having extended the clarity of purpose perhaps we then have the review. However the review is only one small part of what comes next, a broad analysis of what the review has told us, followed at that point by drawing conclusions and then making recommendations.

All this would be in very open debate; all this would be very much in the public view. If the bill had died tonight constituents across the country who watched the debate would have seen only a few of us make presentations in the House today. We have an obligation to our constituents to ensure that in the fullness of debate the richness of our ideas is shared with them.

Does my hon. colleague wish to make some comments on that?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. I would like to reference my answer with a little story.

At the last meeting in Calgary Southeast that I attended with some of my constituents a motion was put forward that will come forward at our assembly in October. I got a very clear message about how effective and efficient they would like us to become here. In this policy they are requesting that we reduce the number of MPs in the House from 295 to 140.

That gave an idea about trimming down, paring down and increasing efficiency here. That gave me a very clear and powerful message from them.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her observations.

For me and as I represent my constituents, those individuals who elected me to the 35th Parliament, I have to say that they are the ones who are giving me my direction. I would like to read from one of those constituents who sent me a letter with regard to the whole matter of electoral redistribution. She wrote:

Dear Jan:

Do we really need more government? At this time we are so far in debt, we should be looking at all ways to reduce costs and restricting the increase in the size of all our governing bodies, not increasing our debts.

Therefore, I would like to see all boundaries remain the same or better still reduce the size of the House of Commons and get our huge debt under control.

The issue at stake is not only representation. It is also keeping our expenditures under control, managing our money more effectively, and keeping our debt under control. Quite frankly it is scary to me to consider that staffing issues will be increasing and burgeoning in light of the enormous debt costs we carry and that the request of my constituents would be ignored in that instance.

Once again I thank the hon. member for her observations. I trust she will understand why I stand here and speak on behalf of, for and with the constituents of Calgary Southeast.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1993 election Canadians from small rural towns to large urban centres told whoever would listen they wanted a reduction in the size and cost of government. They continue to expect their elected representatives to provide leadership on this issue. By not listening the government is failing yet again to provide that leadership Canadians are seeking.

The government as a minimum must review the process by which representation takes place if it is to demonstrate it takes the wishes of the electorate seriously. Most certainly the number of seats in this House must be capped.

I recognize that electoral riding boundaries are not frozen for all time, nor should they be. Changes in population distribution often render electoral boundaries obsolete requiring them to be changed. However, changes should be made with one important element in mind: This country cannot afford any more members of Parliament. What it needs are parliamentary reforms that will make the system and the MPs we do have more effective in carrying out their roles in the House.

One of the most important of those reforms is Senate reform. An elected Senate would ensure that regional interests are effectively balanced against the electoral distribution we now have, one that is heavily weighted in favour of central Canada. An equal, elected and effective Senate is what Canada needs, not more MPs. The long range interest of Canadian federalism, a reformed Senate, must be put ahead of short term expediency, more MPs. Reforming the Senate is the kind of long range planning Canadians expect from government.

The 35th Parliament must take a leadership role in demonstrating we are seriously heeding the wishes of Canadians and that we are acting on their advice. The bill before us today should therefore be rejected by all members who respond directly to the wishes of their electorate.

Like a number of other government programs the exact cost of yet another proposal to possibly add more members of Parliament cannot be calculated.

For example the government has yet to deal with the cost of MPs pensions. While we support the government's intention to review MPs pensions, we cannot endorse the mixed message this bill sends to Canadians. Where is the government's commitment to control and limit spending? Let us be clear and provide consistent messages to Canadians because they are not only listening but they are also watching.

We support a federal democratically elected government that provides equity to all regions through a reasonable alignment of boundaries. Equity is better served through downsizing than through upsizing.

Given that the government cannot fund all of our current expenditures out of revenues, it falls to our lenders to fund with interest these additional costs. It is becoming a very scary part of Canadian government that our lenders are funding with interest those activities and actions we wish to pursue in this House.

In recent years the trend in corporate communities has been to become more efficient. Companies in the nineties have become slim and trim to give better services with decreased overhead. When will the government learn to look to the private sector to see where it is going and what it is doing? There are many lessons to be learned there.

I do not understand how the government is going to create jobs for Canadians when it has no concept of what is going on in the private sector. I certainly met no one during the 1993 election campaign who felt that job creation meant more jobs for MPs.

We are clearly over governed. We have three levels of government. Among the three levels of government there are thousands of elected representatives. The House of Commons has 295 MPs representing some 28 million people. This works out to approximately 94,915 Canadians for every member of Parliament.

The Prime Minister likes to make comparisons between Canada and the United States. I agree with the Prime Minister that we look outside of Canada for comparisons to measure our own performance.

In the United States there are 435 congressmen in the House of Representatives and 100 senators. This totals only 535 representatives for some 250 million Americans. This works out to one elected representative for every 467,300 Americans. I have not heard of any support from Americans to increase their levels of representation by 497 per cent to bring them in line with the level of representation provided for in Canada. This per capita comparison clearly shows that we do not need more MPs; we probably could do with less.

Until there is a comprehensive review of Canada's electoral needs as we approach the 21st century and an accompanying strategic plan, there should be a moratorium on changes to electoral boundaries. The government should guarantee there will not be an increase in the number of seats in Parliament. The notion of simply adding MPs as the population grows lacks any vision regarding representation.

A move toward a downsized and elected Senate will stabilize representation at a lower cost. Making senators accountable to their constituents will allow a further reduction in the number of MPs required to provide greater voter representation than that found in most other democracies.

The government has suggested that a parliamentary panel should study the redistribution and size of Parliament. This suggestion causes the people of Canada, and I am one of them, great concern. They have been left out of the decision making process long enough.

It is time government recognized that Canadians are not satisfied to sit idly by and let politicians make decisions without consulting them. The government says it is committed to an open and honest style of governance. Yet at every turn it is calling for councils, panels and committees that do not include nor are open to the public.

It is not up to current members of Parliament to put forward proposals to alter constituency boundaries for future elections. When a redistribution takes place on a large scale the House of Commons frequently rings out with what one MP, Mr. C. G. Power, frankly described as an unseemly, undignified and utterly confusing scramble for personal or political advantage.

Since 1892 Tory governments have proposed committees to redistribute electoral ridings and the Liberals have opposed them. Conversely, Liberal governments have proposed committees to redistribute electoral ridings and the Tories have opposed them. The opposition premise was that the committees were only serving the interests of the government.

Remember the 34th Parliament and how the Liberals objected to an expanded Senate. The Senate has not brought any improvement to Canadian representation. The Liberal opposition of the day argued that electoral boundary changes would only benefit those on the committee deciding the changes. Why have the Liberals now so dramatically changed their position? They are now proposing yet another committee with a mandate to study electoral boundary changes which would likely recommend increases, not decreases, to the number of MPs.

I am not opposing out of my own self-interest. I oppose electoral boundary redistribution because I want to ensure there will be no new seats and preferably fewer than we have today. This is what the constituents I represent are telling me. Further, this exercise by parliamentarians does not include the public beyond broader based review nor does it have the popular support of the public.

We are calling for the government to adopt a procedure that cannot be accused of being partisan. Electoral boundary changes must only be implemented if they will benefit Canadians.

There were calls for non-partisan redistribution prior to the BNA Act, 1867. Those wishes still have not been satisfied. We in the Reform Party are bringing to the House those popular wishes, wishes that government in this country have failed to listen to for 127 years.

I ask the House to support our amendment.

[Publishing Industry, March 21st, 1994]

I also have documents that I wish to table in the House today.