Ray Speaker

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this very thoughtful and very important legislation. As my colleague, the member for St. Albert, stated in his remarks, the objective of Bill C-289 is to hold statutory spending to the same standards of accountability that Parliament currently applies to discretionary expenditures. That is a very noble and worthwhile cause to put forward in this assembly.

While time is limited, there are two points I want to make in these remarks. First, as statutory programs come to represent an ever-increasing amount or share of total government expenditures, the inability of Parliament to evaluate these programs effectively and objectively is making it more and more difficult for members of Parliament to hold governments accountable. For this reason there is a need to have a bill such as Bill C-289.

The second point is that the intense fiscal pressures brought about by decades of government over-spending not only make enhanced review and evaluation of statutory expenditures desirable, but certainly very essential at this point.

On the first point, I would like to remind the members of the House how our system of government is supposed to work. Under the Constitution as members of Parliament we have been granted three very important powers. First, we must decide how much government will be permitted to spend. Second, we must decide how the government will spend it. Third, we have an obligation to hold the government accountable for those expenditures.

The objective of the legislation is to bolster and to enhance the third of these three parliamentary powers that are given to us as members of Parliament. Specifically, it asks that statutory programs be subject to the same periodic program evaluations that are presently applied to non-statutory programs.

These program evaluations seek to answer four very fundamental questions. First, is the program relevant? Second, is the program effective in meeting its objectives? Third, is the program being delivered effectively and efficiently? Fourth, can the purpose of the program be fulfilled through a variety of different means?

At present no such reviews are conducted for statutory items. When weighing the merits of extending program evaluations to cover this area, we must consider the following: This year, fiscal year 1995-96, the Government of Canada will spend some $164 billion dollars. Of this only $48 billion will be subject to parliamentary review. That means that some 71 per cent, or the remaining $116 billion of our tax dollars will be spent automatically without any attempt to evaluate those programs success. That is just not accountability. That has to change. That is the main purpose of Bill C-289.

Given the size of these annual expenditures, it seem rather ludicrous that members of the House would not be provided with the information to determine whether such programs are effective in meeting their objectives. It is hard to believe that members would have no way of determining whether there is a better way to do things. Yet that is the current state of affairs. Members do not have the information they need to evaluate the effectiveness of statutory programs.

This brings me to my second point. The federal government is presently facing what amounts to a fiscal crisis. It finds itself under immense pressure to reduce government expenditures. Even after making significant cuts to discretionary expenditures in its last budget, it will still have a deficit of $25 billion in the year 1997.

Simple arithmetic tells us that if the government has any hope of achieving a balanced budget then the lion's share of the cuts will have to be made in the area of statutory expenditures. Discretionary programs have already been cut or pared to the bone. The only sizeable pool of money left is in the area of statutory programs and programs such as old age assistance.

That is why Bill C-289, which would subject the statutory programs to periodic review and evaluation, is so critical. In the coming years, members of Parliament will be called on to make more difficult and tough decisions than previous Parliaments have had to make. We will have no choice but to reduce or even

eliminate benefits which millions of Canadians consider to be virtual birthrights.

If we as parliamentarians are to fulfil that task in a responsible manner then we will need the information to make intelligent decisions. At present this information does not exist. Bill C-289 seeks to fill this information gap.

In conclusion, Bill C-289 is valuable legislation which would address two fundamental concerns. First, by improving the scrutiny of statutory expenditures, it would begin to put control of the government purse back in the hands of Parliament.

Second, the information obtained from these evaluations and reviews would provide members with the information they need to make intelligent spending decisions. At a time when every government program is being evaluated, when the most sacred of government cows is being reconsidered and when every dollar is now subject to careful scrutiny by the budget cutters, legislation like Bill C-289 is not merely desirable but is most essential.

[Trade, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.

Could he indicate what approach the government is taking with regard to sugar? Is sugar being negotiated as one commodity alone, or is it a commodity being negotiated with a package of goods relative to the GATT?

[Trade, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, sugar beet producers are concerned that negotiations to open the U.S. border to Canadian sugar exports are being put on hold pending the Revenue Canada investigations into allegations of sugar dumping by the U.S. and Europe.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Can the minister assure the House that negotiations are still being pursued even during the Revenue Canada investigations?

[Business Of The House, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party and my colleagues here today support the motion before us because we want to get on with the job. We want this to move to the Senate and we want to have royal assent today. That is the responsible thing to do at this time.

I also want to talk about democracy. The House leader for the Bloc Quebecois tries to epitomize democracy in the House. If members listen very carefully they will see his definition of democracy. One moment he talks about being for the worker. The next moment he talks about fighting for the economy of Canada. The next moment he is saying something about management. Very soon he is talking about the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour and how she should be involved.

He is all over the place. I cannot understand any kind of definition of democracy in these guttural utterances. It is a delaying tactic in dealing with some very important legislation before us that must move to the other place.

I would like to say to the Bloc Quebecois that democracy is representing those who need representation in an emergency situation. This is demonstrated by the legislation before us.

We have had a group of people who needed immediate representation. There are the shippers, the exporters, the farmers and a number of other people who are innocent third parties who cannot be involved in the collective bargaining process. They are in need of representation in a democracy so that they have equal opportunity. What we have done in moving third reading is say those people are going to be represented in our system and are not going to be injured in any way. It is time to recognize that is an important aspect in this democratic process.

On that basis we urge the support for the motion before us, that the House rises until the call of the Chair, that we resume and give royal assent so that tomorrow the transportation system is operating and taking its rightful responsibility.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state the case in one question for the hon. member for Mercier.

We are discussing back to work legislation for the purpose of protecting a third party which is being injured, the exporters, the shippers. What has happened in this House is that the Bloc Quebecois has attempted to move the discussion into the future of collective bargaining. No one is talking about that. That is not the purpose of this debate.

We are not saying it should be done away with. All the Reform Party has said and what we are saying in this debate is that a third party is being injured. The Leader of the Official Opposition did not mention and was not even concerned about the economy or the exporters and farmers, the people who are being hurt. He was not one bit concerned.

It is time for the Bloc Quebecois members to admit whether they are concerned in the least about the third party we are talking about here, the people who are being injured, and Canada's broad economy. They are being injured by this delay, this nonsense and politics which are going on by the Bloc Quebecois.

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

Madam Speaker, looking at the situation before us we can say that the delay is unfortunate for all Canadians to a great extent. The responsibility today certainly lies with the Bloc Quebecois as its members come here and go through a lot of political gymnastics in an attempt to prove something to Canada. That is absolutely wrong.

The amendment before us asks for what is called a mediation commission. If there was sincerity behind that amendment I would buy it. However, when I listen to the Bloc present its case to this House, the case is one of political expediency. It is not to change the law of the country nor to bring about a common sense solution to the problem. Therefore I do not buy it, nor do my Reform Party colleagues.

It is unforgiving for a political party to play with our economy. Ministers of this government have outlined situations that are costing Canadians billions of dollars. My colleagues have given examples where industries are hurt, where factories and a variety of businesses which are very dependent upon shipping in this country are hurt to a significant degree. And politics are being played in this House to delay the inevitable, that the workers must go back to work and that we must get the transportation system back on track.

That is where we are today. As a common sense political party, we believe it is time to act. The Minister of Labour has brought legislation before the House. We are prepared to support it and move it as quickly as possible through the final stages.

I know we have been critical of the Minister of Labour. However, we have also generalized it to government saying that the government should have acted sooner and not only brought in back to work legislation but also put in place a long term solution to the problem.

The Minister of Labour, as I listen to her in her new assignment, is committed. We are going to hold her accountable for this on behalf of the Reform Party. We will also hold her accountable as the representative of the Liberal Government of Canada. From what I understand, the commission which is going to be established will bring about a long term solution to the problem. We want that to happen.

I have heard other comments in the House today that would only support that general direction of government, the somewhat commitment of government. I hope it is a real commitment. I hope it is not just political statements for expedient reasons at this point and then six months to a year from now we have no action by government toward a long term solution.

As I listened to the Minister for International Trade today he said: "Rail services should be available so that our goods can reach our ports and move across the U.S.-Canadian border". We agree with that. That is the way it should be. The minister also went on to say that we need a more satisfactory way to resolve disputes in our rail system, which is absolutely true. We support that. That is a statement of commitment by the minister as I read it. I hope that minister will follow through and with the Minister of Labour will bring about a long term solution.

The minister for trade also went on to say in his remarks to this assembly: "Early resolution of the rail strike which is causing such problems to our rail system is certainly necessary". We agree with that as well. That is why we are here today.

That is the position of the Reform Party. We want action. We want action immediately to deal with this matter.

It is my hope that the Bloc Quebecois will reconsider delaying this debate until tomorrow so we can forgo further expense. The government whip has indicated there are enormous costs in continuing the operation of this assembly, not only for Saturday but on Sunday as well. These unnecessary costs are being placed upon Canadians because of one political party that wants to play a political game, which is completely unsatisfactory.

Where are we then as the Reform Party? What is our position? What do we think should be done at this point?

First, we are prepared to support the current legislation, Bill C-77, that will put the workers back to work and our transportation in operation as of this coming Monday.

Second, we are concerned that the government did not put the legislation in place at an earlier date. There were many signals. My colleague, the critic for labour, indicated in his remarks that the signals were there and that the government should have put in place legislation upon which we could have acted more quickly.

Third, we think there is a long term solution to this problem. Bill C-262 was voted on in this House earlier this week. A principle in that bill is supported by a number of groups across Canada. We said clearly in Bill C-262 that there should be binding arbitration in place to bring about a conclusion to a dispute. The two parties in that process would each place their final offer on the table, the arbitrator would choose, and our rail system would continue to work.

Some people say that is the wrong way to handle the problem, that we violate some basic principles of the collective bargaining process. I do not believe that is true. In this circumstance there is a difference.

In collective bargaining circumstances we have management and employees. They bargain back and forth through the process and reach a point where there can either be a lockout or a strike. Under most circumstances that is acceptable.

However, when we are looking at the transportation system of the country there is a third party that loses its rights, that does not have any say in the process but pays the bill. The most obvious example is the agricultural community, the agricultural producer or the processor of agricultural products. We are required as farmers or agricultural producers to ship our goods via the railway. When there are no other options we must place the goods on the railway, get them to port, into the hold of the boat and into the international market.

If we cannot have a reliable transportation system there will be a huge economic impact on the agricultural sectors. We have seen that some 15 times in the last 25 years. Billions of dollars have been lost in that industry. The third party, the producer, was the victim. He had no say but paid the bills. That is unacceptable.

With Bill C-77 we will have binding arbitration in place that will be the solution to the problem. It has been the solution to the problem some 14 or 15 times in the last 25 years. It has been the only way to settle the problem. It has been satisfactory to management and employees. Government has had no other alternative but to knee-jerk and bring in special legislation to put people back to work.

Our recommendation as the Reform Party is that we should have that mechanism in place on a permanent basis so that when the two parties get to a point where they have to settle a dispute arbitration kicks in and the solution is there for the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Reform Party with regard to these amendments.

[The Budget, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we may be on the road to disaster as well, who knows. Nobody has put a plan together.

Newfoundland has a planned balanced budget. Alberta has a plan to balance its budget. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are doing the very same. They have a plan to balance their budgets.

When is the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance going to join the club and have a plan to balance the federal budget? When can they do that?

[The Budget, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was very excited yesterday when he learned that the province of Newfoundland balanced its budget. He even recommended it to the province of Quebec. We were excited about it as well.

This is a remarkable accomplishment for that province when we look at the fact that there has been a collapse of the Atlantic fishery and unemployment is around 20 per cent. Newfoundland has balanced its budget through spending reductions and not an increase in taxes.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. If the province of Newfoundland can do this, why cannot the Government of Canada?

[Interim Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Is that agreed?