Martin Cauchon

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

That is not true. Read the budget carefully. Go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks made by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. It is obvious that when measures taken by the governing party are good ones-because they are in the interest of Quebec as well as Canada-such measures will always be disparaged by the party in opposition whose views are exclusively separatist.

We all know that the business and international communities have responded favourably to the budget brought down by the finance minister. In other words, it is the most responsible budget possible.

The current government said it would control the debt and the deficit, but I would also like to draw to the attention of this House remarks made during the last election campaign by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada who stated that the debt and deficit must be controlled but also that a fair balance must be struck between the government's social role and the reality of budgetary constraints.

To my mind, the finance minister's budget is in every respect consistent with the Liberal philosophy of a fair balance. We will get the deficit down. Indeed, we have reached and ever surpassed our objectives because the deficit is lower than anticipated. In saying that the government has a social role to play which must be maintained, well, with this budget we have fundamentally reconsidered the role of government.

People are saying that block transfers to the provinces are disastrous, I say that is pure grandstanding. I myself was a member of the parliamentary committee on the reform of social programs and I must say that, throughout Canada, people were asking for greater flexibility for the provinces. In Quebec and everywhere, people asked for block transfers. And so when the finance minister says he is rethinking the role of government, it is in fact to restore greater autonomy to the provinces through these block transfers.

What else could people ask for? The block transfers obviously entail some cuts, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the cuts we are imposing with this transfer in regard to the Canada assistance plan, health and post-secondary education is not as harsh as the measures we have imposed on ourselves. We must remember that by making a block transfer to the provinces, we are eliminating some overlaps, thereby reducing administrative costs.

Needless to say, this budget could be described as exemplary and that is why opposition members are trying to discredit it, but they are having a hard time doing so because that is not consistent with their views. This budget has something for Quebec and the other provinces, it gives them greater autonomy. That is what Canada will be like tomorrow and it is the Liberal Party, the present government, which will bring Canada into the next century.

And now, my question. In Quebec, people talk about wanting to regain autonomy in budgetary matters, returning taxation power to the province of Quebec, about having more budgetary capacity come separation. Considering that equalization works to Quebec's advantage-

[Montreal Economy, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Montreal area has had more than its share of economic hardship over the past decade. But things have been looking up lately.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development update this House on the economic conditions in Montreal and the regions since the various elements of the human resources development programs have been put in place?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the excellent budget he tabled yesterday. It seems that the money markets were pleased with the resolve the minister showed in his fight against the deficit and their reaction was quick.

Indeed, the Bank of Montreal, the Laurentian Bank and the mouvement des caisses populaires Desjardins have already announced a reduction in their prime rate. In light of this initial reaction we can expect a drop in mortgage rates in the short term, which will contribute to a much needed recovery in the construction industry.

Such good news should reassure Canadian consumers and sustain our present economic growth. Congratulations to our Minister of Finance and to our government for sticking to their commitments.

[Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act, February 22nd, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act to provide the resumption of production activities at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill entitled "an act to provide the resumption of production activities at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd". The objective of this bill is to resolve the labour conflict between ADM, formerly Ogilvie Flour Mills Ltd., and the national union of employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Ltd.

The company and the union are presently engaged in bargaining to renew the collective agreement which expired on January 31, 1992 and applies to some 150 employees of the milling industry. Realizing that no agreement could be reached with the help of the arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the parties faced a strike or lockout.

Union members began the strike on June 6, 1994. A federal mediator met with the parties on several occasions to help them but, unfortunately, little progress was made. During that time, the company continued operating using replacement workers to carry out the work of bargaining unit members.

In tabling this bill today, I would like to put an end to this dispute and conflict.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Sharing The National Debt, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we were very surprised to hear that Quebec's Minister of Finance completely changed his mind last Monday about assuming a share of the debt if Quebec separates.

Minister Campeau stated that an independent Quebec will not be forced to accept something that undermines its economic development especially because "it is not our debt, it is Canada's debt".

The minister's recent statement basically contradicts a statement he made in 1994, that Quebec was worried when it saw the cumulative national debt reach $550 billion as of March 31, 1994, because Quebecers have to pay 25 per cent of it.

The uncertainty created by such statements can only undermine the efforts of those who are working hard for the country's economic recovery.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the remarks of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois do not surprise me either. He says that I am out of touch with reality. The members of the Bloc are welcome to look at my schedule to see who spent the most time in Quebec.

I can assure you that no member of the Bloc Quebecois was more present in Quebec than I was during the past year.

My honourable colleague from the Bloc wants to teach me a thing or two about democracy. He should start by looking at the actions of the Parizeau government in Quebec to see how democracy can be distorted, to see the shameful things that are taking place in Quebec as we speak. A democracy in shackles, Mr. Speaker!

In order to present the whole picture, Mr. Johnson's party asked for permission to distribute information pamphlets using government facilities. It was refused. And they call this democracy, they who use their majority to go ahead with commissions, the sole purpose of which is to secure Quebec's separation, by

any means possible. They are afraid of finding out what Quebecers really think, and this is the reason for this tainted process.

What is taking place in Quebec is shameful, truly shameful. There is much we could say about what is going on there. Take Mr. Parizeau's trips abroad. I regularly have the opportunity to travel abroad as a French speaking Quebecer, as a member of Parliament, and I am proud to be from Quebec, when I find myself in another country, and to be able to negotiate with other countries as an equal. But when I see Mr. Parizeau seeking the blessing of other nations, seeking their views on whether or not to go the independence route, I am no longer proud. I feel almost like some poor colonial when I see their cap in hand behaviour on the international scene.

Quebec is greater than that. It is a great province, great on its own merits. It has made its mark within Canada and we will continue to build this wonderful country with Quebec's best interests at heart.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the parliamentary secretary for sharing his time with me.

I should say from the start that I am very proud to be able to contribute to the efforts made by the minister in charge and the government in general.

Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, is a piece of legislation that fits into what we could call changing times. It is no secret that governments the world over are facing dramatic changes. Canada is embarking on a significant economic realignment. The same is happening in Europe and in many other areas of the world. Free trade zones which will define our future and create the jobs of tomorrow are being created everywhere.

When I talk of major realignment, I am thinking of the major changes that are taking place, changes that we must accept in Canada and to which we must adapt. To face these changes, we, the Canadian government, must essentially rethink the role of the state. Speaking of reforming and rethinking the government's role, you will remember that when the current government came to power in 1993, the Prime Minister declared in this House that we would be proceeding with four major reforms, which essentially aim to rethink government's role in order to better serve the interests of taxpayers as a whole. That is our role as the government, and that is our task as elected representatives.

Speaking of four reforms, I think I should take the time to list them. These four reforms are the cornerstones of the government's policy.

There is the reform of Canada's economic structure, which will now lead the government to concentrate its efforts on small and medium size businesses, which, as we know, create 85 per cent of all jobs in the country.

There is also the reform of taxation. The parliamentary secretary stressed earlier that we will obviously have a clear idea of what the current government means by tax reform when it tables its budget at the end of the month. Let us also talk about a major reform, a most comprehensive reform, on which a partial report was tabled yesterday: the reform of social programs. These programs make us the envy of many countries around the world and ensure that we Canadians have in common the values of co-operation, sharing and tolerance. And lastly, there is the fourth reform we are dealing with today, the reform of the government machine.

I am proud to support this bill because of its intrinsically very modern and dynamic vision of what the government should resemble in 1995. The objective of this bill is to reorganize 22 government agencies. Of these 22 agencies, 15 will be completely dissolved. As a result, firstly, approximately $1.5 million will be saved annually. But given the vision of the present government, the machinery of government will be much more flexible, much lighter, closer to the population and, obviously, will be called upon to deliver much more appropriate service. This is our role in government, as parliamentarians, and I am proud because that is the desired objective of this bill.

You know that Bill C-65 represents a continuation of the government's policy of reforming the government machinery since the minister has already taken certain other steps in this regard and, in sum, there are presently 119 agencies in Canada which have been reorganized, some of which have of course been dissolved.

Reorganizing the machinery of government also involves new policies. People are looking for clear and straightforward policies, with government structures existing solely to serve the public. And when we speak of streamlining the machinery of government, which this bill addresses, we are meeting the needs of the people as a whole in this regard, too.

When the Conservatives were in power, from November 1991 to February 1993, they appointed a total of 1,819 of their friends to these quasi-governmental agencies; these 1,819 partisan appointments did not in any way serve the interests of the taxpayer. So there you have Liberal government policy, a policy issued by a government which regards itself as, and indeed is, very progressive.

This bill of ours is indeed a dynamic one. It shows the commitment of the government to tackling the real problems. It also shows that our government is a responsible government, and fiscally responsible as well. That is what the Canadian people as a whole expect.

Of course, on the subject of responsible government, I must admit that, if you compare what is being accomplished in this House to what the separatist government is doing in Quebec, the contrast is quite striking.

While we, in Ottawa, are downsizing, trying to have a system that will serve the people better, the separatist government in Quebec wastes public money, as you know, on the famous commission on the future of Quebec, a regional commission that

will cost at the very least between $5 and $6 million to the Quebec taxpayers. And this commission will deal with a biased bill in which only one option is considered, it being, of course, the separation of Quebec, the option advocated by the Parti Quebecois as well as all the members of the Bloc Quebecois in this place.

The problem with these people is that, basically, fundamentally, they are not there to serve the interests of the taxpayers and the people of Quebec, but the very narrow interests of a group of people with one political purpose in mind, namely the separation of Quebec.

I for one am convinced that the step we are taking with this bill, the policies put forward by this government, will show the people of Canada and Quebec that you can go a long way with a government who has vision, a government intent on building. In that context, I am convinced that, in the referendum, the people of Quebec will tell the separatists that they have had enough of this squandering of public funds and, from now on, that they want their political leaders to deal with real problems and help improve the standard of living in Quebec and build a better Quebec as part of what I might call the Canadian coalition, as part of the Canadian federation.

Coalitions, huge trade zones are the way of the future, and Quebec wants to be a part of this. The people of Quebec are very broad-minded. They will never stand for the narrow and obtuse view represented by separation, because it is not in their interests.

This being said, let me tell you again, Mr. Speaker, how proud I am to join in the minister's efforts in support of this bill which is basically aimed at the renewal of federal administration and government.

[Post-Secondary Education, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. All kinds of false rumours are circulating about social program reform and about the green book which, by the way, is a discussion paper. Some say that the federal government wants to cut up to $2.3 billion in contributions to post-secondary education. Some even claim that the federal government wants to centralize student loan programs.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development set the record straight on this?

[Member For Laurier-Sainte-Marie, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, four times a year, the House of Commons meets the cost of publishing a householder prepared by each member of Parliament to keep their constituents informed.

In his latest householder, a Bloc member published a letter under the heading "Changes required at the CECM". In this letter, the member argued the need for a school that meets modern-day needs and one with a resolutely forward-looking curriculum, adding that in the current debate, only MEMO offered such a perspective.

I must admit that, on the surface, the connection between the member's mandate and school board elections is not obvious. However, we are not naive enough to believe that this statement has nothing to do with the fact that the member's spouse is a MEMO candidate in ward No. 9 in Montreal.

Taxpayers strongly object to their taxes being used to indirectly fund the election campaign of the wife of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.