Martin Cauchon

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Ever since this government was formed, we have been repeating that we want to get the government machine back on track in order to lead Canada to economic prosperity, an economic prosperity which will allow us to create jobs and make us competitive, not only on the Canadian scene but also internationally.

Two principles underlie this vision of prosperity and govern all of the changes to regional development policies. The first thing that the government wanted to do, and did in fact do-I again stress for the benefit of the House that the people across the way keep on hollering because hearing the truth hurts, but Mr. Speaker, thank God for the House of Commons, a wonderful democratic forum in which we can express ourselves freely without fear and tell the public the truth-now back to the two principles underlying the reform of the government machine and the reform of regional development policies.

There is the issue of the rationalization of public spending. I think that the Minister of Finance's budget eloquently makes the point that the first steps towards rationalizing spending have already been taken. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs conducted a major program review which will eventually lead to program cuts, programs which will more effectively target the public, programs which will meet their real needs. This rationalization of spending shows that this government is responsible and can manage the debt and the deficit.

The second underlying principle is the rethinking of the state's role. When they say they are rethinking the state's role, that means that they are going to take a sharp turn. In the past, not only in Canada but throughout the world, we have had governments that were very interventionist. Today, with all the problems with public finances, government has to play a different role, a role business people have asked us to play. The government has to fine tune its decision making to reflect the needs of various sectors, and it must also consider partnerships.

While we are on the subject of regional development policies, perhaps we should mention a splendid tool for regional development that is part of the federal apparatus, and I am referring to the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec. If we consider the two principles I just mentioned, the issue of scaling down spending, well I must say the FORDQ has done its share. For instance, its budget will be cut by 70 per cent over three years, which means from $487.5 million to $142.9 million in 1997-98. This is a significant reduction, and I think we can say that the FORDQ is doing its share.

Well, I think the changes announced quite recently by the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development (Quebec) are a clear indication of this desire to make some real changes and rethink the role of government so that we can fine tune our response to the needs of Canadians. In this respect, our first conclusion must be that from now on, regional development will be the job of small business.

Small businesses in Canada create 85 per cent of the jobs. They are a very dynamic tool that should be encouraged in every respect. And the government should be there to act as a partner.

Before going ahead with the restructuring of FORDQ, the minister consulted the business community.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

We have risen to the challenge so well that you can hear the other side howl and scream, precisely because we are doing such a good job that it hurts them.

It hurts them because Canadians are starting to see the positive results of our policies. It hurts them because the federal government is implementing a true decentralization which the public understands and accepts.

It hurts them because, when they see the government administration make these adjustments, they realize that it is the end of their dream. Once again, we are showing that federalism is not static: it has always been in constant evolution and it will continue to change.

I want to take this opportunity to discuss regional development. Canada is a very large country and we often see disparities within a given region. A responsible federal government must keep control over regional development.

However, the whole regional development policy must also be reviewed, just as we have already reviewed the government machine. Some members opposite say: "Use the simple approach. We have problems with the debt and the deficit, so just make cuts in regional development".

Their policy is irresponsible. I have heard members opposite say: Withdraw from the area of regional development. This is yet another policy that, in addition to being unrealistic, fundamentally goes against the opinion and the will of the people.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the last 30 minutes, I listened with great interest to the hon. member from the official opposition. It is rather strange to see how a parliamentarian protected by the privilege of Parliament can distort the facts in what I would call an almost shameful manner.

The member made several allusions to Houdini in his speech. Let me tell you that Houdini must be spinning in his grave right now.

In any case, I am pleased to address this House on the issue of the government's main estimates. Since taking office, the Liberal Party has met several major challenges. I am proud to point that out because, if you look at the history of our country, you see that each time a major change of direction occurred, it was invariably with the Liberal Party at the helm. We have always been the ones with a vision, the ones paving the way for future generations of Canadians. Indeed, I am proud to stress that fact this evening.

We were elected at an important time in the development of our society. Canadians then put their trust in another Liberal government because they knew that we would rise to the challenge.

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when they hear things that do not please them, the members of the Bloc Quebecois launch into personal attacks, saying such things as: "I hope my colleague for Outremont will be intelligent enough-" Obviously, what I said does not suit him, because he is not hearing what he would like to hear from members on this side. He knows that what he is hearing from members on this side is also what the people want to hear.

As for the Canada social transfer and the human resources investment fund, I was among the members of Quebec who stood for these issues in the national caucus, and for two reasons. First, we are an economically responsible government. As such, we had to rationalize the programs to propoerly manage the debt and the deficit. Second, we had to decentralize as well, because that was what people were asking for. I was among those who championed these two programs. I am proud of it, and proud of what the government did.

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the opposition member, I seriously wonder if we are really living in the same world and if, in the last year and a half, he has looked at the policies carried out by the present government.

First of all, when people on the other side of the House tell us that Quebecers elected them to make Quebec's independence, I think that is playing down the issues of the last election. Quebecers told us, in the last election, that they expressed their discontent at the ballot box, and it simply happened that the vote went heavily to the Bloc Quebecois.

Why discontent? There were years of Conservative government when an absolutely incredible debt and deficit were built up, and I point out that the hon. member who just spoke was part of that government and voted for all its legislation. Moreover, there were years that resulted in the people losing confidence in the government machinery, in the public servants.

I think that, today, when we look at the polls in general and the work done by this government in the last few months, we can see clearly that the people of Canada and Quebec have regained this confidence, because we promised certain things during the last election campaign and we delivered, because these promises,

the economy and job creation, were of interest and concern to the people. Last year, 430,000 jobs were created, and we are still creating more.

So, essentially, in everything that my colleague has been saying about the debt and the fact that Quebec would simply go and beg for these things in Ottawa, we can see that it is the Bloc Quebecois that is trying to make sure Quebec is perceived that way. But that is totally untrue. Quebec has a large place in the Canadian federation. On the economic level, Quebec plays an extremely important role within the federation. And on this side of the House, we want to make sure that Quebec and the nine other provinces can first develop individually, but also within the Canadian federation and according to major international trends, that they can develop together and excel on the international scene. That is our goal and we will succeed.

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is with mixed feelings that I rise today in the House to discuss a motion tabled by the official opposition member for Richmond-Wolfe.

By mixed feelings, I mean that, looking at the motion and the four bills mentioned therein, I sincerely do not understand a thing. The four bills that, according to the official opposition, are extremely centralizing are in fact and without a doubt excessively decentralizing.

I have mixed feelings because, as I have said before in this House, I believe that the official opposition can do a good job if it acts in good faith and stands up for its constituents' interests. Once again, I must admit these people are unable to rise above strictly partisan interests. The motion under consideration is another astonishing example of this fact.

I have mixed feelings because, on the other hand, I have the opportunity to rise in this House and express myself on what is

Canadian federalism, what it has been for years, and what it will be in the future with our government. But before I go on, let me say that the Bloc Quebecois does not seem to be following a program of its own but, rather, a program dictated by the Quebec National Assembly.

Take, for example, the motion tabled three or four weeks ago to support the claims made by the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. That motion was essentially related to three claims submitted to the federal government by the Quebec government. There again, I had the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion and show this House to what extent Bloc members are biased and do not want the federal system to work.

But I digress. On the one hand, you have the extremist doctrine of the Bloc Quebecois, which says that, if you look at the evolution of the federal system since 1960, you will see that we are headed for an extremely centralizing system which will soon leave very little power, if any, to the provinces. Yet, since our Liberal government came to office, there have been striking examples showing that federalism can evolve in such a way that the wishes of all the governments involved, both federal and provincial ones, can be respected.

Our federal system compares favourably with other federations in the world. For example, consumer spending by the provincial administrations is 3.5 times higher than for the federal government. That says a lot about whether we are a centralized or a decentralized federation. It indicates that the Canadian federation is in fact more decentralized than that of many other countries, including Switzerland, Germany, Australia and the United States.

As regards the fact that the Canadian federation is a model of decentralization, allow me to quote a statement made in 1977, at the University of Edinburgh, by a famous person. That person agrees with me and this government, since he clearly said that the Canadian federation is decentralized. The comment, made in English, was as follows:

And because rather often in Canada we tend to talk of the abusive centralized powers of Ottawa we tend to forget that in reality Canada is highly decentralized.

That was reported in the Globe and Mail of May 9, 1977, and the words came from none other than Quebec's Premier, Jacques Parizeau, who maintained that Canada was a model of decentralization. There you have an excellent example of double standards. You have an example that shows clearly that these people can say one thing abroad, and quite another when addressing Quebecers, when they are concerned about their own interests and their own objectives.

Besides, one only has to think of Mr. Parizeau's speech to the permanent council of French-speaking countries, on his last visit to Paris. When you listen to that speech, and consider Mr. Parizeau's comparisons of Quebec, you are not proud to be a Quebecer. Quebecers are greater than that, they are energetic, they can take their place in Canada, and they will take their place internationally. Mr. Parizeau's speech on the international scene does not reflect this energy. As a Quebecer, I am upset by such speeches.

You know that members opposite talk about centralizing federalism. At the beginning of my speech, I said I would have the opportunity to review a number of issues which clearly show that our federation is an extremely decentralized federation. Take for instance the immigration issue. The immigration agreement is a striking example of good co-operation between Quebec and Ottawa, where the province of Quebec was given more power to select immigrants.

Some argue that it does not work, but I could give you other examples, including the status of some provinces among French speaking countries. Did the province of Quebec or did New Brunswick belong at the Francophonie table? No. The federal government reached an agreement with both provinces so that these provincial governments would be considered guests among the French speaking countries and be able to fully take part in the events. This is another remarkable example of a flexible federation, but mostly of a respectful one.

The members opposite are turning a deaf ear, saying that it does not work. Let me give you some more examples. Direct collection of the GST is another good example of federal-provincial co-operation, which has an extremely positive impact on the population and makes the collection of that tax easier. This is another striking example of decentralization.

Members opposite refuse to hear anything positive and simply say that federation is not working. However, we could give them many more examples which would all indicate that our federation is flexible. They do not want to understand anything, so let us give them more examples. The St. Lawrence 2000 Agreement was signed with the province of Quebec. My colleagues opposite are leaving the House or making fun of what I say, mostly because the truth hurts. When you give them examples, they refuse to listen and leave the House. The St. Lawrence 2000 Agreement is an outstanding example of co-operation between Quebec and Ottawa. This extremely positive agreement was signed so that the St. Lawrence could get cleaned up. It is an agreement that eliminates overlap and that is beneficial to the people of Canada.

And that is not all. Some will say that is not enough. The Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Program. Is there another example of a program that has been implemented in record time like this one has? It took only four or five months to put this program in place. This program, involving the three levels of govern-

ment, municipal, provincial and federal, is aimed at setting in motion incredibly vast projects that have direct repercussions on the people and that serve the interests of the people.

Some will say that that is not all good and there is no decentralization of powers within the federation. Let us look at another example, the Communications Québec agreement, which allows the use of Communications Québec displays to advertise products available from various federal departments. This agreement exists, it has been signed, it works well and its ultimate goal is efficiency. We still have a window on the street but we can save some money.

Some will say that it is not good enough. That they are not impressed. They will say, to try and mislead Quebecers, that the system does not work despite all this.

There are many more examples. Let us take the Canada social transfer. This is a remarkable example where the official opposition has simply done an about-turn.

Members will remember that, before the budget was tabled, we were told that all programs were centralized in Ottawa, that Ottawa was controlling funds for post-secondary education, health and social programs and that there should be a global social transfer. That is what we were told before the budget.

Now to Mr. Martin's budget. We are giving the Canadian public-not just Quebec, but all of the provinces because they all requested it-the Canada social transfer, as a means of making the federation progress, as a means of showing that the system is flexible, as a means of bringing the management of funds closer to the people and of ensuring that decisions regarding spending will be more sensitive to the needs of the people.

Now that the Canada social transfer exists, now that it is reality, we are being told that that is not good, that the Minister of Human Resources Development will try to set national standards unilaterally. Just another example of the inability of the people across the way to rise above partisan interests and to seriously look at what the finance minister's budget really offers to Quebecers and Canadians.

In fact, the Canada social transfer is a Canadian decentralization model. As part of this initiative, the Minister of Human Resources Development has invited all provinces to participate in discussions with the federal government regarding national standards which will apply coast to coast.

Obviously, this bothers Bloc members. This bothers them because, if this continues, obviously the people of Quebec are going to realize, and they already do realize, that the Canadian federation is working well. This bothers them because if it works too well, like it is now, their pipedream of separating is simply going to vanish into thin air.

There has been much talk about national standards. As you know, the people across the way decry national standards. I worked on the social program reform committee, and I must say that nobody in Canada, even Quebecers, is against national standards. However, what people are against is the federal government unilaterally setting those national standards.

Times have changed. The federal government has said repeatedly: "We want a flexible system. We want to work together with all the provinces and, because we are a country, to develop national standards that will respect the identities, wishes and needs of the provinces from coast to coast".

Another example of decentralization is the Human Resources Investment Fund that will come into force in April 1996. It is a good example of how we respect the wishes and the will of the people. There was a reference to manpower issues and to the need for decentralizing manpower services. There are two schools of thought. There is the position taken by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City and the position taken by the public, which is the one we have chosen.

The Parti Quebecois takes the position that everything related to manpower development and manpower training should be theirs alone because they are the experts and know best what is needed. On the other side we have the public that wants to see a partnership between various levels of government that will have access to flexible funding, as opposed to rigid programs, funding that organizations at the local level will be able to manage according to genuine need.

I need hardly add that the course of action chosen by this government is clearcut, straightforward and non-partisan.

I am happy to say that this is the route the people wanted us to take. This is what the human resources investment fund is about. It will ensure that local agencies will be able to manage very flexible funds according to the real needs of the community.

There is another thing. Those opposite criticize us from time to time for intervening in regional economic development. We intervene, because people ask us to. People ask us to intervene as the federal government and also as a partner.

Am I to understand that what members opposite want is for the federal government to withdraw essentially from its regional development function? Does this mean that all the money invested in people to strengthen our economic fibre should be

withdrawn? They will have the task of explaining locally why they want the federal government out of regional development when we have very recent and particularly eloquent examples of efficiency and of funds invested, once again, in business, in the economy and, ultimately, in the people.

Recently, we announced the CESAM project in Montreal. It is a remarkable project, another partnership with the province and private enterprise. It brings together people from the same sector to exchange information and knowledge thus making Quebec businesses competitive not only provincially, not only nationally but internationally. This is what today's Quebec is all about. This is the sort of positive talk the people of Quebec want to hear, talk that is in their interest and that will make them stronger and more viable economically.

There are other remarkable examples proving that we are headed in the right direction. What about Team Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, which also brought back $11.3 billion in contracts. In conclusion, noteworthy examples demonstrating that, if we work together to ensure Quebec felt its interests were well protected both at the National Assembly and in Ottawa, we could build a strong Quebec and a strong country.

[Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my private bill, Bill C-308.

This bill is similar to Bill C-313 which was debated in this House on May 19.

[Human Development Index, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister responsible for restructuring just released a fifth study, this time on the human development index, its concept and its use.

The author of the study tends to show that a sovereign Quebec would have the required potential to develop further and that its quality of life could even be better than that of Canada.

We really wonder how the minister can attach any value to a study whose main conclusions, as the author himself admits,

were reached by deliberately changing the criteria used internationally to determine the human development index.

The PQ minister can release all the studies he wants; Quebecers will never forget that Canada is still the best country in the world.

The minister should stop wasting taxpayers' money on studies which do not serve their interests at all.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, during my short speech, I explained quite thoroughly how the federal government deals with the claims. The public understands very well that we are acting as a responsible government. So I am sure you see why I will not reply to comments that seem to come from someone who was not even here during my speech.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to try too hard to rise above our colleagues today. I have just been told that I am not a real Quebecer. Come on. Let us have a little bit of respect for who we are, for the society we represent and the values we have in common.

They have just proved that I was right when I said that they do not consider me a true Quebecers because I do not think as they do. They just said it, it is as simple as that.

To get back to the member's comments, I will be kind and say that remarks verging on demagogy, such as what we just heard, do not deserve a response.

However, on the subject of commissions-the Bélanger-Campeau commission was mentioned-I will say that the PQ regional commissions throughout Quebec were a clear example of democracy being stifled. The commissions were created with the idea that they were to draw the conclusion the PQ wanted to see, namely that Quebec must separate, but in the end it realized that this was not what people talked about. People reminded the commissions that what they wanted the government to do was to rethink the role of government, deal with the economy and create jobs. But, despite this reality in Quebec and throughout Canada, the PQ regional commissions offered in their conclusion solutions and recommendations which have nothing to do with the testimony they heard.

When it comes to commissions, I believe that the PQ national commission is a telling example of a government which refuses to listen to the people, which wants to manage, to rule, and to govern with only one idea in mind. And we all know what that is.