Martin Cauchon

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the motion presented by the official opposition. This will give me a chance to expand on the role played by the Canadian government in regional development and also to set the record straight.

Before I start my speech, I would like to make the following points.

The Canadian government plays a fundamental role in regional development, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. And if the official opposition wants to try and get the Canadian government out of its regional development role, I simply want to point out that as long as I have my current responsibilities, I will ensure that the interests of all Quebecers are served-

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the other side of this House, they are talking about the federal government's bungling of regional development. I can tell you that, if the federal government bungled regional development, we would not be having an opposition day today. However, I will take the few minutes I have to talk to some of the issues raised by my colleague. First is the matter of unemployment insurance.

I was one of the Quebec spokespersons on this reform. I believed, I believe and I will always believe in this reform. This government had the backbone to carry out a reform that everyone wanted, that was indicated by all of the international organizations, starting with the OECD. The employment insurance reform will make the system fairer, will make more seasonal workers eligible for benefits, and will ensure greater stability of contributions.

We will recall that, in 1993, the Conservatives had predicted higher contributions. With our reform, we not only lowered them, but ensured their stability.

In addition, the program now has active measures to enable workers to be trained in order to quickly return to the labour market. This is what we have done.

Inappropriate remarks are also being made about the employment insurance surplus. Yes, there is a surplus at the moment. However, people always neglect to mention that, during the recession at the end of the 1980s and at the start of the 1990s, the unemployment insurance-now the employment insurance-fund was at least $5 billion in the hole.

Who looked after fixing the deficit? Who looked after paying the interest? The Government of Canada, which guaranteed Canadians continued benefits. That is what profitable Canadian federalism with a vision of security is all about.

Finally, I find it a bit odd, and I want to link up with my colleague for industry, that these people are becoming much more, in fact, overly centralizing. Now they are asking the Government of Canada to become involved in roads and highways, which are under provincial jurisdiction.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity in a while to talk at length on the Canadian government's intervention strategy with respect to regional development and specifically in the Province of Quebec, my area of responsibility.

I would like to say right off that the government's strategy applies to the country as a whole and is aimed at bringing the government and the people closer together to enable the government to be sensitive to the needs of the people and to give the public the full benefit of its services.

I listened to the previous speaker, my colleague from Trois-Rivières, talking about the rural development agreement. In the light of what he was saying, I have a hard time understanding the fact that my colleague does not seem to realize that the regional development agreement has expired. My colleague seems not to understand either that the renewal of the regional development agreement was in doubt and that discussions were held between the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada.

I would ask him if he is aware of these discussions.

In closing, my colleague said that I spent my time giving press conferences and cutting ribbons. I have the impression that the ribbons I cut must be 24 carat gold because the official opposition is focusing on them on a day set aside for regional development. However, I can understand that it might hurt them too, because our government is particularly effective in the area of regional development.

In my colleague's riding of Trois-Rivières, for example, we have invested over $7 million since 1993. If he asks the people there if they think we should leave, he will see what they have to say.

[Regional Development, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec City is indeed in the process of making an absolutely remarkable economic turnaround, and the Parc de développement technologique is one of the tools of development in the forefront of that turnaround.

Nevertheless, the Parc owes is existence today in large part to the Canadian government, which believed in it and provided funding right from the start.

Now, concerning the Parc, which belongs to the Government of Quebec, it is true that its representatives have applied to the Canadian government, more specifically FORDQ, for funding. We are analyzing this request at the present time, and a statement of our position will be forthcoming shortly.

[Regional Development, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the investment of money in regional development, the funds invested in Quebec compare favourably with those invested in all the other regions of Canada.

What upsets the members of the opposition is that, because they refused a year and a half ago to sign a harmonization agreement with the Government of Canada, we set up a regional development structure, which suits the public and meets their needs. There are 13 regional offices within the federal office, and there are 55 community futures development corporations. Why are they so upset that we have understood and that the public is now beginning to understand? Because even if the Government of Quebec is not interested in it, the process of harmonization is being carried out by the organizations themselves locally. That is what profitable federalism is all about.

[Regional Development, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my predecessor at the Federal Office of Regional Development wrote on two or three occasions to the Government of Quebec precisely to conclude a harmonization agreement on intervention in regional development in the province.

Unfortunately, at the time, the two or three attempts were declined by the Government of Quebec, which was not interested in reaching a harmonization agreement. This was in the period before the referendum, and the provincial government certainly did not want to show that the federal system worked well.

What we did then was to set up a new program under which the Federal Office of Regional Development intervenes where it can do the most within its areas of jurisdiction.

We are now prepared to go ahead and discuss harmonization with the Province of Quebec, even if harmonization is a fact, because we were farsighted and wanted to look after the public's interest.

[Airport Facilities, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as for election minded interests, there is a marked difference between the opposition and the government.

The opposition has acted adopted a purely doctrinaire stance, that is to say that opposition members regularly act according to their party doctrine rather than in the best interests of the people.

As far as we are concerned, we insist on properly managing all the funds entrusted to us by the Canadian taxpayers. That is what we have been doing since 1993.

That is what we are doing on this issue. The position we will take will be in the best interests of the people, as always.

[Airport Facilities, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to keep repeating the same things but, as you know, when our government was elected in 1993, it proceeded with a number of reforms.

A special reform took place in transportation, the Canadian transportation reform, which transferred airport facilities to local organizations or municipal governments, which would then be able to manage them according to their local priorities.

In fact, the program covers all airports. If I remember correctly, in Quebec there are four or five airports that require further assistance. Before the Christmas break, I had the opportunity to meet with all the players, particularly the mayors who told me how important these airports are to the local economy. For now, we are examining the issue very seriously. We will proceed when the government is ready.

[Kenworth, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find the official opposition's position difficult to understand. There are several jobs and many families at stake, which makes it an extremely important matter.

Hence the need for negotiation, serious negotiation. There are a number of elements directly involving the Canadian government, be it customs duties or the agreement between Industry Canada and Quebec. We are seriously looking into the matter and, as soon as a position can be defined, we will gladly go ahead, if that is what is called for.

[Kenworth, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, discussions have indeed taken place since the Kenworth plant closed. There were discussions in Quebec City between representatives of PACCAR, the Quebec government and the Canadian government, which I represented.

The negotiations are going well. The word is that the end may be in sight. There are still a number of elements regarding the business plans that the Canadian government is waiting for. When we have received all the information, we will be able to make our position known. At this stage, it is too early to take a position.