Martin Cauchon

[Cinar, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions, first, my colleague at Heritage Canada has already called for an investigation into the CINAR affair, and this is currently under way.

Second, as far as questions on a specific case, hon. members are aware, as are all Canadians, that there is a principle of confidentiality that has to be respected. No comments can therefore be made about the CINAR case.

It is also obvious that, when questions such as these are raised about a given company, the customs and revenue agency does its job.

[Human Resources Development, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to my information, as far as Placeteco is concerned, we at the economic development agency have never been involved with this company.

As for National Revenue, hon. members know very well that there is a wall between the executive assistants and the political staff, a separation to protect confidentiality. If a specific question is asked on a specific issue, hon. members know very well that I cannot comment on a specific file, because of that confidentiality.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of the Seaway, in fact the St. Lawrence River, as well as the railway system, I think the member is essentially referring to intermodal transport.

I believe that, across Canada, intermodal transport is well established. I am proud to say that several years ago, Economic Development Canada, of which I am responsible for the regions of Quebec, took part in an intermodal transport pilot project using both the railway system and trailer trucks on the roads. The results were quite positive.

I would like to stress that the railway system and the waterways are used a lot for commercial traffic. The folks in the Port of Montreal would not be very happy to hear what the hon. member is saying because right now it is one of the largest container traffic centres in eastern Canada, and perhaps the whole of the country. It is extremely competitive. Naturally, it is very strategically located. It handles an enormous volume.

As for the question about airports, because of my role in regional development, I was involved in implementing the national airport policy. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, the objective of the policy—an objective which was commendable and supported by the public—was to ensure that communities could take back control and ownership of their own infrastructures, because they are better placed than governments to manage them and develop them with an eye to real needs.

I am happy to report today that the national airport policy was well implemented. The transfer went smoothly and I think that today the regions are proud to be able to work in partnership with the Canadian government.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the question is so interesting I am tempted to ask you how many hours I have to answer.

When we talk about customs, which is what my colleague is referring to, we are talking about risk management. When we refer to the shared border with the United States, it is the longest shared border of any two countries in the world. We need a very good risk management but, at the same time, as the member pointed out, we need to make sure that corporations will be able to do business as easily as possible in each country. However, at the same time Canada customs needs to ensure that it applies the customs legislation.

I am proud to say that not too long ago we went ahead with some pilot projects in that field. I refer members to the CANPASS program, which they probably know about. The CANPASS in Windsor, Ontario is a pilot project and works very well.

I am pleased to report that we are working on a joint CANPASS with the United States at Sarnia, Ontario. The philosophy that we are proceeding with is good management with the experience of human resources in customs who, by the way, are doing marvellous work for Canadian society. We are using the human resources of the department and we are also using technology. CANPASS is a soft technology, as we say, so we want to make sure in the near future to proceed with such a philosophy.

I am pleased to report to the House we will soon be moving ahead with the blueprint initiative, the plan to modernize Canadian customs.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the official opposition, the Reform Party, on the question of road infrastructure in Canada.

We all remember that back in 1993 we were involved in an electoral campaign. As a party we spoke at that time about the question of a global economy. We also spoke about the question of knowledge based industry and the transition Canada was going through to set the foundation for a brand new economy and to make sure that as a society we would be able to compete in the global marketplace.

As early as 1993 our party talked about the reasons why it was important for an industrialized country such as Canada to have a very good infrastructure. We spoke about an infrastructure program and the importance of such a move bearing in mind and knowing that when we talked about infrastructure we talked first and foremost about quality of life. We also talked about the competition faced by our industry in the national marketplace and in the international marketplace. We talked as well about economic development.

We all remember that back in 1993 the Liberal Party was talking about such a reality. Even though we spoke about a global economy and a brand new economy, we recognized at that time that the question of a good Canadian transportation system was not only key but a cornerstone to good economic growth.

Shortly after we formed the government we went ahead with the Canadian infrastructure program. I know a lot was done for roads at that time but we also did a lot for the infrastructure of the country as a whole. Then came a program review which was led by one of my colleagues at the transport department. Following that we came out with a brand new Canadian policy of which we are very proud to position the Canadian transportation system for the new era and to ensure that it would help our corporations to compete better in the international marketplace.

Following the program review we came forward with a policy called the national transportation policy which enabled the grassroots people in all communities across Canada to be responsible for the infrastructures in their communities. They are well positioned to know their needs and what exactly to do to have efficient infrastructures that work in favour of the corporations and enterprises in their local communities.

The issue raised by the official opposition party is a fundamental one. It is directly related to economic growth as well as tourism.

It is fundamental because of the size of Canada's public road system, which takes in 900,000 kilometres. The national system alone accounts for 25,000 kilometres. These 25,000 kilometres—the national highway system—represent 3% of all Canada's roads and carry 30% of all traffic in the country.

As members know, maintenance of the highway system is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories. Of the national highway system, 1,137 kilometres are the exclusive responsibility of the Government of Canada.

In recent years, there has been much talk about not just what we should do to improve the quality of roads in the system but also how to make the system more competitive. The Standing Committee on Transport was given a mandate in this regard in June of 1997. The conclusions were fairly positive. There was talk of renewing the highway system in order to promote the economy and trade and, in keeping with our philosophy, tourism.

The committee's final report in February 1998 recommended that the Canadian government provide special funding for this purpose.

It will also be remembered that, in addition to all these activities, which showed very definite leadership on the part of the Canadian government, all provincial and territorial premiers called on the Canadian government to become involved in the national highway system.

All this was followed by the October 1999 throne speech, which said, and I quote:

The Government will work with other levels of government and the private sector to reach—by the end of the year 2000—agreement on a five-year plan for improving physical infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country.

Already, in the throne speech, which is really the government's program and vision for the years to come, there was a willingness to move forward in ensuring that the competitiveness of what happens to be a crucial element of any self-respecting country, particularly an industrialized country that belongs to the G-7 and G-8, is restored and maintained.

We know what happened. Members opposite talk about leadership, and I think we have definitely show leadership, we have taken concrete measures. First with the 1993 infrastructure works program and the various consultations that took place, with the throne speech and, finally, with the 2000 budget presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

In budget 2000, we announced that we were going ahead with an infrastructure program, a new one of course. The details of this program have yet to be negotiated and discussed with the provinces by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who, as members know, is responsible for that program.

We already know that an interesting and important part of the program will deal with physical infrastructures, including road and municipal infrastructures.

Another important element when talking about developing, fixing and upgrading these infrastructures—I stressed how important this was for trade and tourism—is to target certain corridors. We know there are specific trade and transportation corridors.

I am proud to announce today that the Canadian government has again played a leadership role. As we know, it has established an interdepartmental working group to ensure that these various corridors could be specifically analyzed and that, together with our various partners and not all by ourselves, we can develop a strategic framework promoting a better relationship with our main partner, the United States. In this respect, the Canadian government has once again demonstrated vision.

Shortly before Christmas I had the opportunity to replace my colleague in transport at a worldwide congress that took place in Kuala Lumpur. The people there were discussing the future and the financing of roads because we are all facing exactly the same situation. We want to make sure we have a good infrastructure in order to better compete in the global marketplace. From what I saw there, Canada is one of the leaders in the world.

[National Revenue, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very important question.

We all remember that we launched the agency last November 1. The aim and goal was to provide the Canadian population with better services. I am pleased to report today that we recently launched a 1-800 number for the business community and that 97% of the people which have tried to get in touch with the department have been able to do so on their very first attempt.

I am pleased to report as well that the line is open from 8.15 in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening. That is good Liberal government.

[Cinar, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, when I was asked about this issue, I said that when we are referring to a specific case, namely CINAR, we must respect the fundamental principle of Canadian taxation. The file at Revenue Canada—and this is important for all taxpayers—is a confidential file.

As for the issue of voluntary disclosure, there is indeed a voluntary disclosure program at Revenue Canada. As suggested by its title, disclosure must be voluntary. I invite opposition members to contact the department for more information on what is a voluntary disclosure. They will find out.

[International Trade, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could help the opposition.

My colleague has so far said that there is nothing in his department. However, there is an agency called Canada Economic Development, of which I am in charge. Our role is to get involved and to help corporations to better develop, not only in the national market but at the international level as well. We were involved with a corporation called Earth Canada. Since their facts are not straight we are not sure if it is the same corporation.

Let me tell the hon. member that we are talking about a very small amount of money and we are talking about the repayment of those contributions. They are doing well. We will keep being involved in such corporations—

[Cinar, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, and I think that everyone in this House is well aware of this, one of the fundamental principles of taxation is the confidentiality of records. Under the Income Tax Act, CINAR's files are confidential.

Now, to pick up on what the hon. member was alluding to, there is a program of voluntary disclosure in place, one of which I as Minister of National Revenue am particularly proud, and it is part of the initiative for fairness. It enables us to provide better services to all taxpayers. Access to this voluntary disclosure program requires exactly that: voluntary disclosure.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You just drew the attention of the House to some words used by my colleague opposite. He started his speech by saying that Quebec was a country. Everyone knows that Quebec is still—