Martin Cauchon

[Montreal Congress Centre, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Quebec government's carelessness that could result in the greater Montreal area being deprived—

[Montreal Congress Centre, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in essence, what the member must understand is that, because the PQ in Quebec City dragged its feet and failed to submit the Montreal congress centre proposal within the right program, the people of Montreal run of the risk of having to do without a totally remarkable development tool.

However, despite the negligence of the PQ, I have said that the members on this side of the House will continue to work very hard to come up with a solution.

[Montreal Convention Centre, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the plan to expand the Montreal Convention Centre goes back at least as far as 1996 and was even designated as a priority by the Government of Quebec at the Montreal socio-economic summit. The Government of Canada was not present at that summit, it will be recalled, having been excluded by the Government of Quebec.

If the Government of Quebec had given priority to Montreal following that decision, we would have used the infrastructure program. Unfortunately, unlike the Canadian government, it does not give priority to Montreal.

Despite the lack of a vehicle, we are continuing to—

[Montreal Convention Centre, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, I join with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, in saying that there is no vehicle available at the present time for intervening in a project as significant as the Montreal Convention Centre. There are similar projects just about everywhere in Canada.

I would like to repeat, however, that a rather strong impression is created by the fact that the Government of Quebec made no use of any of the funding from the appropriate vehicle for such a vital project, when this government has invested $630 million in the province of Quebec via the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program.

Notwithstanding this poor judgment by the Government of Quebec, we shall make every effort to find alternative solutions, since an important project is at stake.

[Canadian Economy, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question, one which will give me an opportunity to tell the House about the Canadian government's policy. In Montreal, a strategy was developed in February 1996 which has resulted in the creation or preservation of 25,000 jobs.

It was in this context that we stepped in when Ateliers Angus shut down and helped form the Société de développement Angus.

This summer, and it is to this that the hon. member is referring, we contributed $3 million towards the creation of Technopôle environnemental in order to revitalize Montreal's east end. This vision—

[Montreal Congress Centre, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to repeat what I said yesterday, which was absolutely clear, we do not need anyone to tell us the economic importance of the congress centre.

I repeat, the unfortunate part is that, as a national and a responsible government, we put a tool at the disposal of the provinces called the national infrastructure program and, in the case of Quebec, it was the Canada-Quebec infrastructure works program, which was not used for this fundamental and important purpose, whereas Quebec City used the program for its congress centre and for another fair centre.

My colleague is saying that there is no fund or program as such, and he is right. However, we are working hard to come up with an alternative solution, because this is an important issue.

[Montreal Convention Centre, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the question of the Convention Centre is an important one to the government.

The economic fallout from the Convention Centre is recognized by this side of the House, where we are working like mad to make it possible for some form of agreement to be reached on the matter of the Convention Centre.

While addressing the question of the Montreal Convention Centre, however, it must also be kept in mind that there are other requests from pretty well all over Quebec and Canada. As a result, this request has to be looked at from a national point of view.

It is unfortunate that the Government of Quebec had a so-called infrastructure program that they did not make use of for such an important project.

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-29, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 43 on page 7 and line 1 on page 8 with the following:

“(4) The Chief Executive Officer may dele-”

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 6 the following new clause:

“8.1(1) The Minister shall, at least once every two years, convene a round table of persons interested in matters for which the Agency is responsible to advise the Minister on the performance by the Agency of its responsibilities under section 6.

(2) The Minister shall respond within 180 days to any written recommendations submitted during a round table convened under subsection (1).”

[Assistance To Ice Storm Victims, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration of the official opposition, when the Government of Quebec has refused to work with the Government of Canada to help small and medium size businesses.

If the Bloc Quebecois were following the program, it would know that, when I made a presentation before the Standing Committee on Industry, I had the opportunity to provide a rather detailed progress report on the program.

It would also know that, at the time of that presentation before the committee, we also announced a loosening up of the criteria in order to include professionals.

This good news is proof that the government is attuned to the public and wishes to serve its interests.