Ronald J. Duhamel

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 134.

Question No. 134-

[Government Response To Petitions, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to a number of petitions.

[Learning Disabilities, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed a number of our colleagues wearing a black and gold ribbon over the past month. March is Learning Disabilities Month and this ribbon honours all Canadians who have learning disabilities and those who provide them with support of all kinds.

One Canadian out of ten, which means 2.9 million Canadians, has learning disabilities, which will affect performance at school and may be a serious obstacle to learning to read, write and do arithmetic.

Early diagnosis and remedial intervention is the key. Children with learning disabilities become adults with learning disabilities if there is no early intervention.

As a former educator, I recognize the importance of training for all teachers in learning disabilities and the importance of specialized training programs for adults with learning disabilities.

Today I honour and recognize the learning disabled, each of whom struggles daily to learn. I also honour those who provide them with support of all types.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Our two friends across the way will be delighted to hear that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague two questions. How would my colleague explain the fact that Canadians generally and the business community in particular have been extremely supportive of the budget and have also supported the initiative of reducing the deficit at 3 per cent of GDP?

I heard some comments that were not supportive of the government's initiatives with respect to the civil service. Could my colleague tell the House what the Reform Party's options are in reducing the civil service?

Would it provide an early departure initiative, an early retirement initiative? Would it permit counselling? Would it provide other types of assistance such as working with communities for the creation of jobs?

If it is yes, how can he be critical? He should jump up and applaud.

[Petitions, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in this petition the petitioners, Canadians of the Islamic faith, want the government to consider guardianship as an option to adoption. Guardianship would include the same legal and moral obligations as does adoption now.

These petitioners point out that their request is in accord with their religious beliefs. They would like to see discussions begin now so that changes could be made in the very near future, in line with the points I have raised.

[Statutory Program Evaluation Act, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on Bill C-289, a private member's bill.

The bill provides for the regular evaluation of continuing government programs funded by statutory appropriations by a program evaluation process set by the President of the Treasury Board. Responsible ministers would be required to table in the House the results of these evaluations.

The bill also requires the Auditor General of Canada to review and report to the House of Commons on major evaluations.

During this period of concern for the deficit and the level of the national debt, it is very important all parliamentarians and all Canadians know which government programs are working; which government programs are working well and which ones are not working well. We also want to know how we can improve them so they are affordable and that they meet the objectives established for them.

Program evaluation is a good tool for reviewing programs. It allows for the questioning on a periodic basis of the rationale for each government program. It involves the systematic gathering of verifiable information on a program. This information would include demonstrable evidence of its results and cost effectiveness. This process would provide more and better information for decision making.

The government has already demonstrated its commitment to the need for regular program evaluations. Many of our public documents place an important focus on evaluation. For example, "Creating Opportunities", the red book, outlines the importance of evaluation information and the 1994 budget called for major reviews of federal programs.

These important reviews of federal programs had two objectives: first, to identify the programs and services that the government will continue to provide if there are enough resources and, second, to ensure that these programs are delivered in the most efficient way possible. We can already see the results of these reviews.

In addition, in May 1994 the Treasury Board approved a new review policy. The intent was to strengthen the ongoing review capabilities of departments and the government in general. More and improved review and evaluation findings are to be made publicly available.

Bill C-289 recommends evaluations be made of statutory programs on a cyclical basis. This a worthy approach. We need to ask how practical it is. There are only so many resources that can be devoted to program evaluation. We must use those resources carefully.

While major statutory programs are important, sometimes it is much more cost effective to evaluate issues which impact on more than one program and possibly on more than one department. Evaluations involving many departments are often more strategic and more likely to be useful.

The government needs to retain flexibility in this regard. Cyclical evaluations of singular statutory programs may not always provide the wider information base needed for a significant government decision. There is nothing wrong with supporting cyclical evaluation. One needs to think whether this approach is the best one in all cases.

Ultimately we want to ensure review of activities undertaken by government departments and central agencies are better linked to government priorities rather than some predetermined schedule.

The needs and aspirations of the population change rapidly. Unforeseen problems may arise. Decision makers and managers must adapt quickly to any change in conditions.

A long term fixed evaluation schedule is not always appropriate. Programs should be evaluated based on an analysis of risk, their importance to Canadians and, as the information is needed, for decision making. To have an evaluation for the sake of an evaluation is not cost effective or wise.

Evaluations are not the only source of information parliamentarians and Canadians can use to evaluate whether government programs and services are affordable and effective. There are many different activities in government which help us to learn how well programs are serving Canadians and also to identify successful practices that can lead to service and quality improvements when needed.

Earlier this week the President of the Treasury Board released details of the renewed expenditure management system of the Government of Canada. The new system is intended to support the objective of making the best use of tax dollars to deliver quality services to Canadians. The renewed expenditure management system introduced the concept of departmental outlooks. These outlooks on program priorities and expenditures will be provided to the various standing committees of the House.

These documents will give parliamentary committees better quality information that will enable them to evaluate future priorities and trends in departmental and program spending and to comment on them.

The public service is currently working to establish service standards for its programs. The role of service standards is to provide answers to questions such as how long will it take to provide a service? How often will it be provided? What can people do if they are not satisfied? Providing service standards that pose these types of questions invite public feedback. This feedback from the clients of government is an important element in the government's attempt to provide quality services that are affordable, efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Internal audit is another important tool available to provide information on the success of programs and activities. Internal audits are designed to help managers achieve their business objectives by identifying weaknesses or opportunities to improve the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of program management practices.

It is also important to note that the information on program performance must be available on an ongoing basis. Managers, members of Parliament and senators along with the Canadian people would not be very happy to learn long after the fact that the programs have not produced the expected results.

There must be useful performance measures that provide answers on an ongoing basis. The Auditor General has for several years encouraged the government to improve the quality of the information in this area. Program managers must be encouraged to demonstrate on a timely basis the results being achieved by their programs.

Most of the mechanisms for providing information on program performance, what I have discussed already, have a permanent place in the management framework of government and are already used to assess statutory programs.

I have tried to demonstrate that, even if evaluation is an important management tool, it is not the only one. No single tool such as evaluation can meet all information needs that determine program effectiveness. Each review tool and each information tool must be used at the appropriate time and for the appropriate purposes.

I have tried to demonstrate the most important aspects of what is happening in government in terms of relating information to parliamentarians. The House recently passed a private member's bill that changed the Auditor General's act to allow him to report more frequently to the House. This change will provide us again with more timely information on government activities and I am sure it will provide the Auditor General with more work.

How much more work can we be asking the Auditor General to do before we start to reduce his effectiveness? That is one of the problems we would encounter.

The bill before the House is the result of an admirable effort by an hon. member to ensure that we all have access to good quality information on program performance. I suppose that we can never have enough information. We must, however, consider the costs.

As the bottom line there are many good sources of information available to us on a routine basis. We must ensure we are making full use of these resources. If we need further information there are many options open to us. Should we be enshrining a new review process into legislation without fully considering the options and costs involved? I think not.

I am prepared to look at the positive options of the proposed legislation. If they can be incorporated into some of the mechanisms we have in place it will be done.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak this evening on the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

I believe wholeheartedly, as do all of my colleagues I hope, that the objectives of the bill are well intended. I am in favour of ensuring that accountability for all of our crown corporations is adequate.

Before indicating whether or not this bill should be supported, I want to examine it objectively and in some detail. What we want is responsible accountability. This is a fairly technical bill.

We are talking about a bill that has as its basic purpose the removal of exemption from application of divisions one to four of part X of the Financial Administration Act for five crown corporations. These are the Canada Council, the Canada Film Development Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre Corporation.

The accountability framework set out in part X is widely viewed as being very well designed and progressive. However, it has some shortcomings where some crown corporations are concerned. The act passed in 1984, which first included part X, contained exemptions which are now found in subsection 85(1) of the FAA. This subsection exempts this crown corporation from the provisions of part X, which deals with operations.

As I said earlier, this is not bedtime reading. It is a fairly technical bill. Along with the five corporations named in Bill C-263, two other crown corporations are exempt, the Bank of Canada and the CBC. In addition, legislation has been passed but not yet proclaimed that would create another crown corporation exempt from part X, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

Perhaps when examining what Bill C-263 is trying to accomplish hon. members should also be willing to examine the grounds for exemption. Why were these particular crown corporations exempted from part X when others were not? This is an important fundamental question. While not found in any written or formal criteria or regulation, the reasons for exemption reflect some of the very special sensitivities in the relationship between the government and these particular corporations.

I note that all of these corporations were created by special acts. All have mandates carefully specified in these acts and for some they involve administration of resources provided by third parties.

The Canada Council as an example is mandated to foster and promote the study, enjoyment and production of works in the arts and to co-ordinate United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization activities in Canada and Canadian participation in various UNESCO activities abroad. Part of its activities involve administering an educational fund created by its act and other funds established through private donations.

Certain of these funds specify the payment of grants and scholarships in the arts field "in such manner as the council shall determine". Would contributors to these funds feel as comfortable if the Canada Council were not an independent crown corporation?

I believe that the hour reserved for consideration of this bill at this time is drawing to a close, so I will finish in the next hour of debate.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am saddened today to see that we are unable to reach an agreement on a serious problem which is hurting the country and its citizens so much. I would have thought that when faced with such a big challenge, we could have given each other a hand and have found a solution that would make everybody happy. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

That is sad, because the strike costs $500 million a day. By the end of the strike, say the workers come back on Monday, we will have lost $5 billion. Just break that figure down into how much each citizen of the country lost. It is a huge sum.

Obviously businesses and stores almost everywhere in Canada are affected. Obviously Canadians are all affected. It is having very, very dire and, in some cases, brutal repercussions for people. We often forget that workers are also affected. Not only those on strike, not only those who are locked out, but also those prevented from working because of what is going on. I find that so sad.

You have all heard that the Bloc is touting itself as the defender of workers' rights. But we have to ask ourselves one basic question. Which workers are they defending?

Is it the workers of the industries listed here: the Himont petrochemical plant in Varennes, where production has dropped by 25 per cent; ICI, a petrochemical plant in Dalhousie, with a 33 per cent drop in production; Donohue, a pulp and paper plant in Saint-Félicien, Quebec, now closed, with 100 people out of a job; Donohue, a pulp and paper plant in Clermont, slated to close down, laying off 75 employees; Franceau, in Chambord, where 190 employees stand to be laid off; Univers, in Val d'Or, which will throw 16 employees out of work; Forpan Inc., in Val d'Or,

where 146 employees could be out of work; Panval Inc., in Soyabec, slated to close down, laying off 238 employees; or PanFiber, in Mont-Laurier, where 101 employees could be laid off? Are those the people the Bloc Quebecois seeks to protect?

You know as well as I do that what they are trying to do, of course, is to disguise their true intentions. Why is it that the Bloc said absolutely nothing when the government forced the longshoremen to resume work in Vancouver? They did not say a word. Why is that? It is obvious. They have a big problem. They went too far. They did not understand. They have not been sensitive enough to the rest of the country. Now, they are looking for a way to put that behind them. They made a bad move; it was poor judgment on their part.

Let us look at the damage done by this strike. I will quote from an article published yesterday, March 24, in The Ottawa Sun . I want to make sure I quote it correctly.

It is the height of irresponsibility for Bouchard to stall back to work legislation.

The strike is costing industry $500 million a day in lost production and sales. By the time the legislation is eventually passed by Parliament on Sunday, the strike will have cost the economy $5 billion.

The dispute has delayed shipments of potash, grain, coal, ore, forestry products, heavy industrial components, processed food, chemicals, manufactured products and other goods.

For Canada's farmers, the strike could not have come at a worst time. It is the busiest time of year, with nearly 25,000 rail cars on sidings waiting to deliver the rest of last summer's harvest.

If we were to ask my colleague from Brandon-Souris how the people in his riding are affected, he would corroborate that it is disastrous for the farmer and certainly the western Canadian farmer.

The articles continues:

Tens of thousands of workers across the country have been laid off because of the disruption, while many more are being forced to work half shifts.

At least 70,000 commuters in Toronto and Montreal face the inconvenience of finding other ways to get to work.

The stalling tactics are certainly linked to supporting the referendum. Referring to the province of Quebec the article states:

The strike has hurt the province's manufacturers, aluminium industry and its pulp and paper companies.

For example, forest giant Repap Enterprises faces imminent shutdowns and layoffs affecting 5,000 workers that could paralyse entire communities.

One of the reasons why Bouchard is being obstructionist is to keep good relations with Quebec's militant unions, which are big boosters of independence.

Clearly, Bouchard feels he can't afford to anger the unions which are one of the few organized groups in Quebec willing to jump over the cliff to reach the separatist dream.

The article is a little harsh and goes on to state:

Bouchard has demonstrated to Quebecers that he's clueless about bread and butter issues. If he doesn't know the impact that the strike is having in Quebec then imagine what would happen if the province ever separated from Canada.

How can Quebecers put trust in his lofty claims that there won't be any economic fallout if Quebec separates?

Obviously they can't if he isn't able to see the consequences of a rail strike which is essential to the entire Canadian economy.

That is what the article states. It is a condemnation of the actions of Bloc Quebecois members. They show quite clearly that what they are trying to do is take advantage of the situation for their own political gain.

There are two basic principles to consider. We all agree that, as far as possible, work agreements should be negotiated, that labour disputes should be settled through negotiation. Ideally, we all wish it could be so. But do you not think there is another principle that is equally important and sometimes more important here, namely the protection of the public, the protection of this country's economy to which we owe the quality of life we enjoy in Canada at this time? That is what we are doing today. It is not that we do not want workers to reach an agreement with their employers. We gave them time and no agreement was reached. Now, in the face of the damage done by this strike, we have to take action. We have no choice.

Many Bloc members mentioned that the bill will be used in other sectors in the future, because of what we are doing today. I agree and I challenge them by asking: Why not begin to co-operate in an attempt to settle this situation? Let us put Canadians back to work and let us co-operate in looking for solutions that will ensure that the situation never occurs again, either in the railway industry or elsewhere. How can we simultaneously protect our workers and our people? That is the challenge.

I conclude my speech by commending the Minister of Labour for her excellent work. Well done, Madam Minister! The job has not been easy. We are not enjoying this. We believe that agreements and labour disputes should be negotiated. But the time has come to give priority to the country and its people.

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners believe that violence and abuse in our society is a growing concern.

They also believe that violence and abuse in all forms in the media is something that has to be checked. They are particularly concerned about the way in which it might affect young children.

The petitioners ask the government to ensure that the CRTC do what it can to minimize and reduce unnecessary violence and abuse in the media. They point out that very often what is seen, heard and read is counter to what people try to do to raise their children.

At the same time they point out that certain gains have been made and they appreciate the recent efforts of the CRTC in this regard.