Martin Cauchon

[Regional Airports, December 11th, 1996]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out that, in large part, this matter has been brought to my attention by all of the members of the Quebec caucus, who represent the interests of the Province of Quebec very well.

I have met with all of the mayors and some reeves of the regional municipalities, and I must say that my Quebec colleagues and myself are greatly concerned by the airport issue. I believe, however, that it is incorrect to say that the projects are on hold. The municipalities are awaiting a government decision, but there is a national policy in place which applies at the present time, and a decision will be brought down shortly as to whether we shall be in a position to provide a positive answer to the various requests from the municipalities. This is of considerable concern to all members of the Quebec Liberal caucus.

[Regional Airports, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated in this House, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has indeed drawn up a national transportation policy in order to give full responsibility for certain facilities back to communities. At issue are wharves and airports.

The policy was introduced so that regions could manage airport facilities in a manner better suited to their particular situations and needs.

This said, a policy has been implemented in connection with airports, and will be adhered to throughout the country. It is aimed at allowing us to provide assistance, under a certain program, to airports serving commercial airlines. The others, which are not used by commercial carriers, will receive somewhere in the order of $50,000, if memory serves me correctly.

I have met with all of the mayors, and the matter is being looked into.

[Regional Airports, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, so aware are we of the importance of these airport facilities that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, introduced the national transportation policy in order to give regions more responsibility for organizing, restructuring and managing airport facilities.

As I mentioned, because they do not have regular flights, certain airports do not meet the national transportation policy criteria.

I met with mayors and various stakeholders. We are in the process of looking at what can be done, always with an eye to our ultimate goal of transferring responsibility to the regions and paving the way for improved development of airport facilities.

[Regional Airports, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the government introduced the national transportation policy in order to give full responsibility for certain facilities back to communities. At issue are wharves and airports. The policy was introduced so that regions could manage airport facilities in a manner better suited to their particular situations and needs.

There are, in fact, a number of airports in Quebec that do not meet the national transportation policy criteria. I met with a good number of stakeholders. We are now at the analysis stage.

[Candu Reactors, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

We have indeed announced the sale of two Candu reactors to China. This is excellent news, because the contract is worth $4 billion. Canada's share in the financing, in other words, its financial contribution, is $1.5 billion. This means economic benefits worth $275 million for the Province of Quebec. In terms of job creation, it means 8,000 person years. The two reactors will take some six and a half years to build-a substantial contribution to the economy.

This announcement is proof of the Government of Canada's ability to help businesses export and develop new markets, an important consideration in this time of globalization. It also shows that the Canadian government is bringing jobs home, which is vital.

[Montreal Economy, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, now they are talking about greater Montreal or the surrounding area.

I am pleased to say in this House, in this democratic forum, that between 1986 and 1993, Quebec received in the order of 29 per cent of all federal funds set aside for public housing. In 1995, through the efforts of our government, Quebec received 32.2 per cent of federal funds set aside for social reform.

Discussions were entered into with all the provinces. They are proceeding well with the province of Quebec, obviously, but there is not yet any concrete result. But Quebec is receiving its full share of the pie, and then some, as far as public housing goes.

[Montreal Economy, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks before the last election, we put out an electoral platform entitled: "For the economic recovery of greater Montreal".

If you look at this electoral platform, the majority of the promises made by the government have been kept. And what we did for Montreal was essentially to have all the departments involved in the economic recovery of Montreal take a horizontal approach.

We followed our vision, and today we see the concrete results. Here are a few: Bell Helicopter, in the aerospace industry, Ericsson, Biochem Pharma, Merck Frosst, Spar, SR Telecom, Harris, the Institut-

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of patience to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosemont. When I listen to him, I get the impression we do not live in the same metropolitan area.

When people opposite say that what is expected from the government are fundamental decisions and concrete projects, I wonder where they have been for the last 20 to 30 years, when the federal government has been building the modern economy of Quebec, when it has been contributing to that as a partner.

I wonder also where members opposite have been for the past few months when we have been taking action everywhere in the country, particularly in the Greater Montreal area. One needs to have a vision in order to make fundamental decisions. The Prime Minister of Canada stated our government's vision this week before the chamber of commerce, and I have explained it again this morning.

Each and every action we take, based on this vision, from the most modest ones to the most significant, have been fundamental actions. The most modest ones have been important for small businesses. Take for example the Info-entrepreneurs centre in Montreal which has a resounding success in the business community because it is filling a need.

Another example is the Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation of Montreal which has just changed its focus. Members opposite say we are talking peanuts. These thing are important. The Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation has just changed its focus in order to help small businesses more, and young people who want to start their own business in the new economy.

There have been other federal contributions and more structuring projects, like Bell Helicopter, in which Quebec and Canada take great pride. Just think of the latest announcement. They were talking about peanuts a while ago. But Bombardier-Canadair will be producing a new regional 70-passenger jet aircraft, and the Quebec aerospace industry will keep its enviable position on international markets.

This morning, I spoke about the leading edge in the space industry. The Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert is part of the aerospace industry, and it has a ten-year plan representing $2.3 billion.

These are fundamental and concrete projects. This is what it means to act in a structuring manner and, most of all, with a vision.

In concluding, I will get back to an issue. If my hon. colleagues opposite want to put their shoulders to the wheel and work constructively within the framework of the strategy we have developed, we will be pleased to take all their remarks, provided they are made in the spirit of that vision and that strategy. However, they already have elements in their hands. They can surely talk to their colleagues in Quebec City about the sword of Damocles the Prime Minister was talking about, and also about the areas under their jurisdiction, like education, to use them to adequately respond to the needs of our population and the needs of our young people. They could also talk to some people who are in charge in the metropolis, so that we move forward in a partner like manner.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first of all I must thank my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect, for his show of confidence. I would just like to point out that, notwithstanding the trust put in me, when in the same breath the will and the good will of the Prime Minister of Canada is put into question, it is also my own will and good will that is being put into question.

In that sense, I must say that the Canadian government's policy in the Montreal strategy is a noble one in that it acts on a serious situation.

I describe the situation as serious because there are more poor people in greater Montreal alone than in all of Atlantic Canada. When a government with a national vision wants to ensure that the country has a dynamic economy, is able to export and can be competitive-as I said this morning-it has to make sure that large urban centers throughout Canada have a dynamic economy. It is our duty to remain active, and I emphasize remain, because we were already active and will continue to be active in the Montreal area.

What we are asking official opposition members is basically to heighten the awareness of their colleagues in the Quebec government so that they work in partnership with us, a partnership already endorsed to a very large extent by city officials in Montreal.

I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. The issue of transportation was raised earlier, and many aspects were listed. Someone mentioned for instance that, on June 6, 1996, Via Rail Canada announced its was consolidating all its operations in the greater Montreal area. That is quite something.

Regarding the Canadian Securities Commission, I respectfully submit that it is wishful thinking on the part of my hon. colleague to say that Quebec will be swallowed up and will have to join in. In establishing a Canadian Securities Commission, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is essentially acting on a request made by a number of provinces across Canada. With this structure in place, Quebec will not be required to join in. Its jurisdiction will in no way be affected.

I think criticism can be good, but it must be constructive criticism. Now that we have made quite extensively clear the will to act and plan of action of the government and the Prime Minister of Canada, I urge them to join in and fall into step.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as regards defence industry conversion, the Canadian government took action a long time ago. The hon. member referred to the famous DIPP. This program is now called TPC, or Technology Partnerships Canada, and it also relates to the issues raised by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It gives very concrete results, as was hoped, and these results benefit the whole community.

This dynamic and concrete initiative is part of Industry Canada's program, and we co-operate together. As you know, regional development officers are on Industry Canada's team, and we all work together regarding the point raised by the hon. member.

As for defence industries, here are some examples of contracts awarded between April 1996 and now: ammunition purchase from SNC, $140 million; automated systems for low altitude air defence from Oerlikon, $62 million; DND uniforms from Logistik and Newcourt, $42 million; Spar Aerospace, $39 million for space program trinkets for Canadarm and RADARSAT; DND aircraft repair and overhaul by Allied Signal Aerospace, $22 million; Godfrey Aerospace, $16 million-