Martin Cauchon

[Rcmp Investigations, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I was not aware.

[Parc Technologique Du Québec Métropolitain, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will confirm what my colleague, the Minister of Industry said: this government has focused on job creation based on businesses in the new economy.

As for the Parc technologique du Québec, it was created and exists in large measure because the Canadian government supported it from the very beginning. We recently stepped in with an additional $150,000, which seems to have satisfied the people of the Parc technologique.

However, I would just like to mention that the Parc technologique du Québec is a paragovernmental corporation belonging to the Province of Quebec, and I think that members of the official opposition are knocking on the wrong door. I think the Canadian government has more than done its part for the Parc technologique and we are happy to have done so. They can try knocking at the door of head office now.

[English]

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. Through that question we can see the philosophy of Reformers. They talk on that side of the House about spending. They see regional development as an expenditure. On the government side we see regional development as an investment. It is a very important investment.

The Reform Party would like to see a free market without any government intervention. Reformers would like us to be in a society where there are only rich people. But it appears that in our society there are some regions which have to be helped out by the Canadian government.

A major role is played by regional agencies across Canada. We are playing a major role not only with the offices of FORD-Q but with Industry Canada and the community futures program.

When they talk about the contradiction in the budget, it appears they may be quite weak on the other side of the House. It seems that the budget has been affected a bit because we will manage, as we have in the past, the infrastructure program. It was included in this year's budget and last year's budget. If they need any further details they can go to public accounts and they will see that the budget is a public matter.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Strictly speaking, it will have no impact on economic development. When we talk about the economic development of Montreal, the one government that has been present, that had a vision, was the Canadian government.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

-by extending the deadline until 1998. Sponsors realize they now have two summers to make the adjustment. I must also point out that this bill does not ban sponsorships; it regulates them. Obviously, the opposition has been going around saying all kinds of things.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

I would not call my colleague's remarks irresponsible, for that would be unparliamentary. The health minister's bill was what the public wanted and called for. It was a bill that people wanted. It is a question of public health. My colleague managed to strike a balance between going ahead with the bill and the various interests in the Montreal region-

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

I would be pleased to do so. When they speak of these local elites, allow me to tell you that these people they are busy looking down on today are trying to serve the public well. They have established a partnership with the Canadian government because we have set up programs that meet their expectations, their interests, and their needs and that allow them to structure their region's economic development in terms of the realities of the 21st century.

As far as the tobacco bill is concerned-

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, you see the approach they are taking with the people of Quebec. When Quebecers do business with the Canadian government, suddenly they are no longer Quebecers, they are now local elites because they are doing business with the Canadian government. Let me tell you that what you are calling a local elite is far-

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Who can deny the competency, knowledge and expertise of the Canadian government where research and development are concerned? The more I have to say, the clearer and more striking the truth becomes, and the more they holler-which is perfectly normal.

Who can deny that the Canadian government knows what it is doing when it speaks of the new economy? We are heading toward

a knowledge-based economy. We have to create centres of knowledge, something the Canadian government has had a hand in for some years already. We have been able to create a network of institutes or research centres in Quebec that are the envy of many in other parts of the world. To mention but a few: the IRB or biotechnology research institute, the INO or national optics institute, the Institut national de recherche scientifique, the National Research Council.

I imagine it does not suit my colleague to admit this, but in the riding of Trois-Rivières there is an institute that owes its existence to the Canadian government: the hydrogen research institute. This is our vision within the context of the new economy: to work in partnership to create tools that will enable all regions to structure themselves and to develop economies which will enable them to be competitive nationally and internationally.

In terms of innovation, not only are we undeniably competent, but, in the last budget, we announced the creation of the Canadian foundation for innovation with a budget of $850 million. This foundation is based on a partnership. It could have a future budget of $2 billion. This initial investment should be followed by investments by the private sector or various interested provincial governments. The foundation will enable us to intervene in areas like health, the environment, the sciences and engineering.

The federal government aims to support the public through these various development activities and ensure that we can act where we really have the skills and the know-how.

We can talk now more specifically about our projects in the Province of Quebec. Let us look at some examples. In terms of market development, and the export market in particular, we have set up with the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Departments of Industry and Foreign Affairs a program called NEXPRO designed to help new exporters. It is providing 1,000 future exporters with information now through the NEXPRO program that will ensure they have the tools they need to penetrate markets and face the competition when they reach the point where they want to or are able to export.

We provided some 30 sessions in Quebec under this program and invested over $3 million. In this area as well, we can talk of an investment of $150,000 in Estrie international 2007, an export commission, already producing interesting results for the region.

There is also Chaudière Appalaches, an international marketing plan for the tourist industry. This project is supported by over 50 companies. I could also mention the $50 million in the last budget allocated to the Business Development Bank of Canada to help out companies in the tourist business.

As for the other area of activity, namely innovation, research and development, I could give you the example of the regions of Laval, Laurentides and Lanaudière, where $300,000 was provided to the Conseil des bio-industries du Québec. This goes to show that we are focusing on biotechnology and providing assistance in that area. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we have helped the Société de technologie de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

In fact, in every region of Quebec, the FORD has made representations to five financial institutions to make nearly $150 million available to help businesses adapt to the new economy, all that in Quebec alone. All this was done through the Federal Office for Regional Development to make loans available, while letting the banking industry develop a new culture, a new philosophy.

On entrepreneurship, we have focused on young people. We have worked both together with my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, and through partnerships, helping set up student clubs in colleges and universities and supporting these young people so that they can develop the entrepreneurial spirit and fibre we will need at the turn of the next century.

These investments, and I mentioned only a few, represent only a small portion of what we are doing for the public in terms of providing a simple yet remarkable structure for regional development. There are 13 regional offices across Quebec, 55 CDICs and 8 CDECs on the island of Montreal. This is a very simple and very flexible structure easy to understand for everyone.

We want to ensure that our services are readily available and that we, the Government of Canada, can keep in touch with the people's needs and reality. That is how we were able to act in the Gaspé-Lower St. Lawrence-Magdalen Islands region with the coastal Quebec program for the North Shore, a $13.5 million program. That is how we were able to develop the Montreal strategy and help the people in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.

In fact, apart from all this, there is our vision as well as our ability and desire to act through various agencies, first the FORD-Q but also the CDICs. In addition to all this, we also provide quality service. We provide very competent advisers to the public. I have worked with the federal office staff for over a year now, and I can tell you these people are doing a remarkable job. They are dedicated, they care about regional development, and they want entrepreneurs to succeed in the regions. This is why the Canadian government is proud to be involved and to work with people to promote regional development.

Members opposite often complain about government interference and unilateral action. However, the examples I just mentioned

are unequivocally based on a consultation of the communities concerned, and on a partnership.

When the opposition claims that we go over the head of the Quebec government to consult directly with the organizations and the people who are familiar with regional development, it is not insulting my government but, rather, Quebecers who are involved in economic development.

It is like indirectly telling these people that they are not very responsible and that they should be monitored by the Quebec government. Let me tell you that the people with whom I work in Quebec to promote economic development are very competent. They have a vision and the federal government will continue to work with them.

The Canada-Quebec agreement was also mentioned. I find it really extraordinary to hear the hon. member saying that we refused to renew the agreement, that we do not want to proceed with an agreement.

First of all, the agreement on regional economic development with the Quebec government had expired. However, the population of Quebec must know that my colleague, the finance minister, who was my predecessor as minister responsible for the federal office, did approach the Quebec government several times to renew the expired agreement. Of course, they do not mention this, but people should know about it.

In 1995, my colleague approached the Quebec government not once, not twice, but four times. We have approached the Quebec government four times to sign a harmonization agreement, first on January 12, 1995, and then on April 5, July 5 and August 11, 1995.

Of course, Quebecers will have understood that that request from the Canadian government was refused, even turned down, and they will have understood why. A referendum was coming, and since those people do not have the best interests of the population at heart but only their political interests, there was no way they would help show that federalism was working.

Therefore, as a responsible government wanting to provide good services to the population, we went ahead and reshaped our programs. Today, our programs are centred around elements based on our services and skills. But I would add that I do think a harmonization agreement is not really necessary, since we are acting in partnership and this is under our own jurisdiction according to the new programming.

However, a meeting was organized. Maybe my friends do not know it yet because, in view of the motion, I am under the impression that they do not know what is happening at their head office, but a meeting was held on February 19, 1997, with the representatives of the Federal Office of Regional Development, and there are some discussions and exchanges concerning a possible agreement. But it is much too soon to say what we think of it, since we do not even know what the Quebec government wants.

When we do know what they want as a government, we will be able to make a decision. Actually, we do not really know with whom we should be dealing in that government. Should it beMr. Chevrette, Mrs. Harel or Mr. Trudel? Perhaps my colleague, who is familiar with the workings of the head office, could try knocking on their doors to find a solution or somebody we could deal with.

This is essentially what directs our action, and I think it is important that we as the Canadian government be dedicated to help the regions. Our action is based on the effectiveness of our services. It is also based on a deep respect for what the local population wants and needs, and for what the situation is locally.

To conclude, I think we should first ask my colleague on the other side to consult with the head office and ask it to clean up its own act as far as regional development is concerned. In fact, a white paper will be published soon.

What saddens me is this: what the Bloc Quebecois wants to do today is not so much to criticize the Canadian government for its regional development policies as to try to prevent it from taking further action in this area, because what action it is taking is right on target. The federal government's action does respond to the population's expectations and does serve the population well. It will stay the course.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

-and ensure that people wherever they happen to be in the province of Quebec have access to the services of the Canadian government.

Listen to them shouting. They are shouting because this goes against their purely partisan dogma.

Mr. Speaker, let us consider the motion for a moment. It says:

That this House condemn federal government which, because of its policies, is in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec-

I will not qualify the motion as far-fetched, because this would be unparliamentary, but I certainly do not agree with it.

Let us recall the fundamental role played by this government since 1993. We took over a government that was in trouble. The Prime Minister asked for a number of reforms, which were judged and considered major reforms. Today, these reforms have started to bear fruit to the benefit of all Canadians, which means that in the regions people are already enjoying the obvious benefits of these reforms.

Consider for instance the issue of public finance. Thanks to the work done by my colleague, the Minister of Finance and by all Canadians-because everyone did his share so that we can all turn the situation around-thanks to all this, today we have the lowest interest rates we have had in 35 years.

Members opposite refuse to point out the positive effects, the positive results that the government has achieved. Take for instance a small business in one of the regions, which wants to borrow $1 million over ten years. The annual savings due to lower interest rates amount to $33,400. That is tremendous.

And take a private citizen anywhere in Canada who wants to borrow $15,000 to buy a car. In terms of the interest he would otherwise have to pay he will save about $483 annually.

From the outset, the reform of our public finances has produced incredible results for all Canadians, so that today we can look to the future with optimism. And we also see the economy is picking up.

Another reform I would like to mention briefly is of course program review, a fundamental reform that allows us to better target our programs and rethink the way we do things. This reform has also produced tremendous results for the regions.

As far as the Federal Office of Regional Development is concerned, there used to be some 45 programs, but now there is just the one, called IDEE-PME, a sensible and accessible program. This program is based on the enhanced contribution potential of the Canadian government. It is well focussed, essentially on small and medium businesses in the regions, and thus impacts on the driving force of economic development. It is a program with a number of focal points: R & D innovation, market development, exports in particular, all focussed on enhancement. This involves fostering entrepreneurship. That, essentially, is the basis of the program

The other side says that the Canadian government has no reason to exist. Just look at the IDEE-PME program. Who can deny that the Canadian government has competency, knowledge, expertise, where international market development is concerned? What about Team Canada and its success, what about the embassies and consulates throughout the world?