Martin Cauchon

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for sharing his time with me.

Today, I realize something that, in fact, I had already realized a long time ago, that there is a policy guideline to be followed. At the beginning of this Parliament, I thought that perhaps the

official opposition would be constructive in its attitude. Unfortunately, as many other speakers said before, members of the official opposition are unable to go beyond pure political partisanship. The motion tabled today by the Leader of the Opposition is an obvious and eloquent demonstration of this fact.

Today, they are trying to speak against the Canada social transfer. I must say I am astounded. I am certainly not the least of Quebec nationalists. I worked tirelessly for decentralization, for more flexibility in the management of programs by provinces. I am proud to state in this House that the Canada social transfer is a remarkable example of decentralization.

This social transfer, basically grouping together the Canada assistance plan, post-secondary education and health, is very easy to manage. It eliminates a lot of jointly managed areas. It is a fiscally responsible system and also a system allowing provinces to gain more independence in the administration and management of their own social programs, since it gives them the means to meet the needs of their citizens.

Members speak of national standards, claiming that any national standard would penalize a province, whether it is Quebec, Ontario or any other.

I represented the Minister of Human Resources Development when we dealt with the reform. I want to tell the House that, of all those who spoke to me, no one was against the idea of a national standard. The reason is simple-people want national standards if they are established in a concerted way, in co-operation. That is what the Canada social transfer is letting us do. We establish standards together, as a team. When one believes in Canada and in a place for Quebec inside this federation, it is possible to reach a consensus as to guidelines uniting the provinces from coast to coast.

They are trying to have people believe that a national standard is a terrible monster that would be in everybody's way. In other countries and other regions, people are speaking of globalization, union, unification, whereas here we would like to confine ourselves to a certain area and to refrain from adopting standards that would allow for some liberalization, some interprovincial exchanges. We did so in matters of trade, last year.

That is what we are doing at the social level. We are just being open-minded, we are just showing some form of progressiveness, showing that we believe deeply in Canada and Quebec.

You know, this debate is about the Canada social transfer but we could also talk at length about the human resources investment fund created by the same budget. This fund, which meets the expectations of the provinces in every respect, will ensure that the management of training programs is decentralized to the local community level and that community-based organizations are empowered to administer training funds according to the needs of the community or the locality.

That is what federalism means to our government. That is the way of the future in terms of federalism. That is progressive federalism. Still, to achieve this form of federalism, you have to be a good player and want to be on the team.

I could go on about what our government has done to improve and decentralize the federal system. The problem is that, talk as we may about a federal system that works, we come up against a government in Quebec and, in this place, an official opposition which do not want to listen. They do not want to listen because they know that our government is a very open one. They know that, if they participate in our renewal process through administrative agreements, program changes, approaches like rethinking the role of the state, it is going to work and, if it works, ultimately, this will mean the end of their old dream of separation.

For my part, I will tell them this: Rise above strictly partisan interests and strive to look after the interests of Quebec and fight for the people of Quebec. Strive to renew the Canadian federal process. This is what we are doing.

Earlier, my colleague referred to the national commissions. It is pretty easy to figure out what Quebecers want. They want us to look after their interests by restructuring the economy, by creating jobs and, particularly, by putting an end to these constitutional debates. They want to see the economy improve and they want us to move forward.

It is shocking to see that the report tabled, which cost millions of dollars to produce, does not insist on what people said. On the contrary, it concentrates on the ultimate objective, which is Quebec's separation.

In conclusion, what we want is to go on. We want to help workers, not only in Quebec, but all across Canada. We want to continue to improve the economy. We are getting there: last year, we created 433,000 new jobs. We want to ensure tomorrow's prosperity by providing our workers with tools.

The human resources investment fund is one measure which will ensure that our workers have the necessary tools, that they get adequate training and that they are able to face tomorrow's challenges, including foreign competition on international markets. Proud Quebecers and proud Canadians think big, and this is why we made that commitment.

[Quebec Referendum, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec officially announced, yesterday, that he was postponing the referendum until the fall. The leader of the Parti Quebecois is telling us that he has no use for the report by the National Commission on Quebec sovereignty which is to be tabled on April 13.

We all know that millions of dollars have been spent for this huge consultation operation which was to give the people of Quebec an opportunity to advise the government on the issue of Quebec sovereignty.

With yesterday's announcement by the PQ leader, one week before the tabling of the national commission's report, we have to conclude that for the PQ government and its friends in the Bloc, strategy is more important than the opinion of Quebecers.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

I say that we only have to look at the finance minister's budget. To see how much this annoys them, we only have to listen to the opposition members yelling today. When they are annoyed, they yell and they yell loudly. That is what they are doing right now. The budget responds to the requests of the provinces. For instance, the Canada social transfer gives much more autonomy to the provinces and will allow them to refine their own social programs. That annoys the Bloc. They are now trying other political avenues, still for partisan purposes. What is sad this time is that they are playing party politics on the backs of workers across Canada. And that is mean-spirited.

The finance minister also responded to the expectations of the provinces in terms of national standards. The new Canada Transfer and the national standards will be worked out with the provinces. The provinces will be asked to discuss these standards with the Minister of Human Resources Development, so that they will reflect the reality of all the provinces, the Canadian reality.

In conclusion, there are on this side of the House, thank heavens, people who are capable of rising above political interests and capable of acting responsibly to ensure that we make decisions so that, in this case, the economy and labour relations can progress and, ultimately, all workers across Canada, the Canadian economy and Canada as a whole can benefit. The message that I am sending to the opposition parties is this one: stop acting for purely partisan motives. People told you that during the regional commissions; they want governments that deal with the real problems, and that is what we are doing in the case of the rail dispute. I congratulate the labour minister for her initiative, and I also commend the government for its responsible vision.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to take the floor today to speak to Bill C-77, an Act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services.

I am proud because the action the government and the Minister of Labour have taken is basically a responsible move. When I look at the opposition members, I have to admit, much to my regret, that they are consistent. Members of the official opposition party are consistent because they always had as their philosophy that politics never work. Consequently, they apply that philosophy to everthing they do.

People are told that is their philosophy, and people will make up their own mind. But now, I would like to examine the two opposite positions we have before us today. On one side, we have the stance of the official opposition that wants to amend the bill.

Where does that amendment leave us? The opposition proposes a 60-day mediation process, that is 50 days for mediation and 10 days to let the Minister read the report and table it in the House. But, after these 60 days, if there is no agreement, we are in a dead end, and it is back to square one with the lockout, strike and never-ending disputes. That is not the way things should work with responsible people and a responsible government.

On the other side, there is the position of the government, which is reasonable and responsible, which I support and which gives a mediation-arbitration commission composed of three persons a 70-day mandate to let the parties try to reach an agreement by mediation. During this 70-day period, the committee will hear both parties, and then, if the parties still do not reach an agreement, there is no denying that the members of the commission will have in hand all the necessary elements to make a proper decision. They will be able to weigh both sides and, after the 70 days, if no agreement is reached-because we, as the government, want to go ahead, and all parties, no doubt, want to go ahead-this commission will make a decision in full knowledge of the facts.

There is no need to go any further and explain in greater detail the positions of both parties. There is no need to further elaborate to see that the government's solution is realistic and reasonable. However, I will repeat what I said at the beginning. It is sad to see that members from the Official Opposition are unable to rise above their own political interest and partisanship. How can they confuse their own interest with that of the population, the public interest? How can they confuse partisanship with such serious problems requiring a quick conclusion and solution.

On the other side of the House, they disregard the interest of employers and employees and they also disregard the numerous economic problems this dispute is creating in Quebec. The previous speakers talked about that, therefore I will not give you the long list of businesses having a hard time these days, and the long list of employees being laid off. It is sad to see these people claim they represent the workers when, in fact, they are acting in their own best interest. Once again, they are just trying to fool the people. The Parti Quebecois simply does not want the system to work.

Since the Parti Quebecois was elected in Quebec City, they have showed us repeatedly, and they are demonstrating once again that they do not want federalism to work. Unfortunately, they apply this ideology to real problems affecting the public. They have left the Canada-wide negotiation table on environment, where Quebec was one of the main and most important participants. But since they do not want the system to work, they left the table. What annoys them right now is that you have here, on this side of the House, a responsible government, a government that is holding the course, that is also responding to the expectations of the provinces. We only have to look at the finance minister's budget.

[Americana 1995, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one of the Liberal Party's policies is to promote and support the environmental industry in Canada to enable it to explore new markets, broaden its activities and create new jobs.

I am delighted to announce that Environment Canada is taking advantage of the opportunity presented by Americana 1995, an event currently taking place in Montreal until March 24, for the very purpose of enabling the promoters of environmental technology funded by our various programs to learn more about gaining access to international markets.

In addition, we have planned certain activities in order to give these promoters an opportunity to meet members of the international delegation invited to this event so they may demonstrate their technological innovations to potential buyers.

Environment Canada, Industry Canada and the Federal Office of Regional Development are partners in this event.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is quite interesting. He says that we are going ahead with major cuts. I believe we did not read the same budget.

The budget says that we are reforming the CBC budget as a whole for 1995-96 but we did not talk about cuts afterward. We are doing exactly what the hon. member would like the government to do. We are going ahead with major reform of the CBC's mandate because the government is aware of the financial situation of the country.

We have to take care of the financial situation. At the same time we have to look into the future. In so doing we have to look at reforming the whole system. We have to look at the social safety net and at reforming the system. We will do the same with the CBC.

I believe my colleague's question is a bit premature at this stage because we did not announce any major cuts to the CBC. There is $1.1 billion a year in the budget for the CBC. There is something for the year 1995-96 but thereafter we are doing exactly what the member would like us to do. We are reforming the system.

I am sure the Minister of Canadian Heritage will come back to the House after the standing committee looking at the reform of the mandate makes a decision.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize I had annoyed the hon. member so much. We will return to a situation of calm and talk about serious things, that is, the CBC.

I will be brief. When they say there is a philosophy behind their thinking, which gives them vision, it is unfortunate that this vision is not shared by anyone in Quebec, because they see things only one way and that is from the standpoint of separation, which I find unfortunate.

She talks of the hearings of the regional commissions, but we could say a few things on the subject. All that they have done is prove the vision of the present federal government right. People told the opposition member's head office that they wanted attention to be paid to the debt and to the deficit, that they wanted attention to be given to the issue of job creation and that they wanted attention to be paid to economic development.

How is it that only the hon. members opposite have failed to understand? For the past year and a half we have been busy organizing public finances and reforming government machinery, and I must add, successfully. The latest budget of the Minister of Finance is remarkable.

In opposition, they refuse to hear what the people are saying. It is quite simple, however. They have to let go of something that dates from bygone days, from the 1960s. Quebec has changed.

Quebec now has its own instruments of economic development. Quebec is a Canadian power, which now is felt worldwide. These people are acting as if we were still in the 1960s. They are reacting as if they had been colonized. I do not feel they are part of my generation.

In conclusion, I am proud to be a Quebecer. I have no complex. I am proud to belong to the big Canadian family and to go forth together with these people.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to read the motion introduced by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata and I can say that I was not surprised at all.

Members across the aisle have a philosophy which is behind all the actions of their party. I have said and I repeat that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are not in this House to defend the interest of Canadians and Quebecers. They are here for one reason only, their own interest, which is the separation of Quebec at any cost.

Once this leitmotiv and this philosophy are understood, it is not surprising to see motions like the one we now have before us. Why such a motion? It is simple. It is because the CBC has for many years promoted the Canadian identity and our culture and it has promoted what we are. The CBC has played a role in our unity and in the development of the French fact in Canada, not only in Quebec but also outside Quebec, because there are indeed francophones outside Quebec, a reality that very much frightens the Bloc Quebecois. Therefore, it is not surprising to see that kind of motion which is an attempt to adversely affect the CBC, this national monument and institution of which I am extremely proud.

Indeed, we are in a period of fiscal austerity. The federal government is in a period of fiscal austerity and so are the provinces. The Minister of Finance's budget, and may I remind you that this budget has been tremendously well received by all Canadians, which proves that this government is a responsible government, has lightly touched the budget of the CBC in an effort on the part of the minister to put some order in the government's fiscal house.

There is some bad faith on the other side of this House. I think that this budget indicates clearly the intentions of this government regarding the CBC that we want to preserve. There was a small reduction in the budget. As you know, the budget of the CBC is in excess of $1.1 billion. There is a budget reduction for 1995-96. What we are saying is that we want to go ahead with a reform of the CBC that will take into account the evolution of Canadian society, of our political context and of our country as a whole.

When we talk about reform, we always talk about changing the institutions so that they can evolve at the same pace as the rest of our society. That is what we intend to do with the CBC.

It is not in the interests of the official opposition that we go ahead with our reforms. Their sole objective is to show that the system does not work so that they can eventually bring about the separation of Quebec. They create a very destructive climate that unfortunately serves no one's interests.

When we were elected to form a new government, we said that we would proceed with major reforms. Such reforms can be implemented if everybody works together and pulls in the same direction. However, that is not good enough for the official opposition. Of course, they take their orders from their party's head office in Quebec City and since their party is in power in Quebec, the orders are not to co-operate with the federal government. They are afraid that co-operation could lead to a solution to the present situation and to a slide toward Canadian

federalism which would be in the best interests of all the provinces and in line with the Canadian reality.

Quite the contrary, they chose to withdraw from the process, unfortunately. The head office, the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City, has unfortunately done so in many areas, such as the environment. In that area, they have withdrawn from a Canada-wide consultation committee-Quebecers should know these facts-a committee set up to fine tune the relationships between provincial governments, to fine tune Canadian federalism and to make Canada grow and also, by the same token, to make Quebec grow.

Those are the actions taken by these people who want to go backward instead of moving forward. You know, when we say we want to go ahead with reforms, and also to strive to create a better system, this is possible. The Minister of Finance demonstrated that in his budget.

Let us consider, for example, the issue of social program reform. How many provinces asked us, in the area of social programs, for some decentralization in order for them to gain more autonomy and to be able to shape programs, to a greater degree, according to local, regional and provincial realities? It was nearly a unanimous request.

When we look at the finance minister's budget, we find a positive answer. We see that there is some decentralization and that we created a new Canadian social transfer, a transfer that gives provinces more autonomy and that invites provinces to sit down with the federal government and develop national standards that would apply coast to coast.

That is what Canadian federalism, an evolving federalism, is all about. That is the new political reality. It is a reality that requires politicians throughout Canada to work together in co-operation. But those people do not want to function, they do not want to move forward.

Instead of spending their energy on improving Quebec's position within the Canadian federation, they choose to waste public funds. That is something. In 1995, instead of trying to get the public finance in order, instead of trying to take measures so that Quebec can still have a place within the federation-an enviable place, an important one-and be influential internationally, the newly elected government in Quebec simply tries to achieve one goal, separation, and to do so, it uses public funds and wastes them shamefully.

The regional commissions on the future of Quebec are a good example of that kind of waste of public funds. They represent not only a loss of money, but also an incredible loss of time. I can assure you that I am a true Quebecer and that when I see members opposite do what they are doing now, I know deep in my heart that we are not making any progress with them. They have a negative vision of things.

Canadian federalism did contribute to the development of the French language in Canada and to the development of the French-speaking people living outside Quebec. And the federal government will keep on doing so, it will keep on improving Canadian federalism.

And that is not all. Not only does Canada permit the francophone community within its walls to reach out, but, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned, Canada is also involved in the international francophone community and enables the francophone face of Canada to shine internationally.

We do it and we do it alongside the Province of Quebec, since the Province of Quebec sits at the table of the international francophone community at the invitation of the federal government. We are so successful at this that we recently established TV5 with other francophone countries. Is there any finer international success than TV5? Is there any finer success for the francophone community than TV5? Therefore federal government actions shine forth not only nationally but internationally.

In closing, I would like to say that, if we work hand in hand, we could protect our invaluable CBC and, doing so, could also enable it to provide the same services in the future it has provided in the past. These services have enabled the French language to shine forth and allowed Canada to express its linguistic and cultural duality not only coast to coast, but around the world.

In conclusion, I would point out that we do not have to listen to anyone who is not working constructively and who is bent on destroying the country. We also do not have to listen to anyone who, when it comes time to act in their own bailiwick, does something far worse than we can do. Take, for example, the issue of Radio-Québec. To go back to the beginning, for all of these reasons, you will see that the hon. member's motion was predictable when we look at the principles underlying their political actions, and I find it quite unfortunate that they take nobody's interests into consideration. The only interest they serve is their own, and their interest is to see the day Quebec separates. If we work together, let me tell you because I have travelled in the province of Quebec many times, we can give Quebecers what they want, a progressive and constructive society.

[Journée Internationale De La Francophonie, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 20, is the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

Moreover, this year is the 25th anniversary of this celebration of French culture and language, which was marked by the creation of the Cultural and Technical Co-operation Agency.

The Francophonie, which unites 47 countries, can be described as the community of peoples who speak French to varying degrees.

Since 1970, Canada has played a leading role in the development of the Francophonie. Through its membership in the Francophonie, Canada shares with the rest of the world our physiognomical traits and gives French speaking Canadians, who number 8.5 million, access to the world and development possibilities in a wide range of countries located in all parts of the world.

I would like to wish all francophones and francophiles in Canada a happy Journée internationale de la Francophonie.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would simply like to add to the comments of my eloquent colleague, who clearly, has done a fair analysis of the budget situation. I would like to add, on the matter of national standards, as I mentioned earlier, that the Minister of Finance created a new transfer in the budget to be called the Canada social transfer.

The opposition is saying that again we are setting national standards for the Canada social transfer. I see nothing wrong in setting national standards. The problem with national standards-and again the opposition is trying to doctor the truth-is that, in the past, the standards were set unilaterally by the federal government. Now what we are saying, and it is in black and white in the budget, is that we are inviting all of the provinces to work together to set national standards jointly and in a spirit of co-operation.

This is the new Canadian federalism, flexible federalism, co-operative federalism. We are not trying to hide the truth or use some form of trickery to take away what is in fact in the budget and what was requested by all of the provinces.