Stéphan Tremblay

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform Party is quite right. I put the question. Naturally, I believe in the importance of this debate. But I put the following question to him: does he think that parliamentarians have information that is relevant and essential to such a debate? I raise the matter of the quality of the debate. I do not question the need for it.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a few comments, then put a question to my colleague across the way.

This is the first time I take part in this debate. I must say that it feels strange to rise in this House at 4.20 a.m. If today's debate is one society must hold, I find it somewhat odd that it should take place during the night since this is a time when most people are sleeping. I find it rather ironic that such a debate be held during the night.

The other problem I have with this debate is that I find it difficult to talk with conviction about a topic that is so mind-boggling. What is going on in Europe right now is ethnic cleansing. I find it easier to understand when we talk about economic war. Tonight I was watching a report by Céline Galipeau, who was just back from the war zone. She said that even the local people have trouble understanding what is going on.

Today, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to debate something that is happening halfway across the world and that even the people involved have trouble understanding.

I must say that this is far from restoring my faith in humanity, particularly when this year marked the 50th anniversary of the charter of rights. We have recently also marked the 50th anniversary of the second world war, with its memories of Auschwitz and so on. Those in my generation were always told “Remember these events, so that you do not have to witness anything like it in your lifetime.”

A few years later, here we are, witnessing scenes exactly like those of 50 years ago. This is unbelievable. We must not forget to speak, at least to say that there is something incomprehensible in it all. Perhaps it is because of my young age that I speak this way this evening. It may be, but it is also because I think there are many people throughout the world who have trouble understanding all this.

I have a duty today as a parliamentarian, along with all the other members of this House, to talk military tactics, when I have no clue as to how things work when one wants to intervene to change a situation somewhere.

It has to be done, however. This debate is essential. As parliamentarians, we must nevertheless be cautious because we have only limited information available to us. I have to form my opinions on this situation like most other people in the world, by listening to the news and watching the major television networks.

We have seen that foreign journalists have been expelled from Kosovo. We must therefore form our opinions on a conflict that is hard to understand to begin with, on the basis of a rather limited amount of information. What I would like to ask my colleague across the floor is this: Does he believe that parliamentarians have the pertinent information required for holding such a debate?

[Tax On Financial Transactions, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat troubled by the shift in thinking that has taken place over the last year. I am referring to the government's position which would tend to be supportive of the motion before the House.

The debate we are having today is very important. The motion may not be perfect, and the mechanism to deal with the issue may not be either, but at least this parliament is talking about the phenomenon of speculation, which is pervasive in our economies.

The first challenge in this debate is to define the concept of speculation, and it is quite a challenge. To understand speculation, a bit of a historical background may be useful.

Since the end, in 1971, of the Bretton Woods agreement governing the foreign exchange market, financial markets have been plagued with instability. Speculative bursts have occurred, and since the value of assets had no relation with reality, speculators played currencies against each other at the expense of the affected countries. Mexico was under attack in 1992 and, in 1994, the pound sterling had to be withdrawn from the European monetary system.

Mr. Soros, one of the biggest speculators in the world, who, incidentally, gambled $10 billion against the pound sterling and earned $1 billion, has stated that some order definitely had to be restored in the financial system.

This is a complex debate, but the impact of speculation remains to be determined. Today, at least, we are dealing with part of this problem.

I will not speak in favour or against a tax mechanism on financial transactions. I think the issue must be considered in a more comprehensive way. First, we have to understand the impact of speculation on civil society, and then, once we understand it—as I often put it, to understand in order to act—we will be able to act with the full knowledge of the facts.

Unfortunately, some people today are against such a regulatory system for the international financial system. However, the Tobin tax, the tax we are talking about today, is a mechanism that can be proposed. There are other mechanisms. For example, Chile, a South American country, partially sheltered itself from speculators by charging a tax on a portion of the funds getting out of the country less that two years after coming in.

Then, there is the tax on direct investments abroad, derivatives trading market regulations such as swaps, options, futures contracts on bonds, stock index contracts and so on; I have here a list of proposals coming from civil society economists throughout the world.

Where there might not be any consensus is on what mechanisms should be set up and which international body should initiate such a reform. Others attack the project, stating categorically that it is impossible to reach an agreement internationally on this type of regulations.

The challenge is there but at least, what is important is that we talk about it and that people know more what we are dealing with when we talk about financial market destabilization because I think this is the case. There is some instability.

A while ago, my colleague mentioned investments in financial markets, they are not value-added. These investments do not create jobs, but wealth. It all depends how you define wealth.

There are other causes for concern. Thousands of billions of dollars are moving freely around the world in search of gains due to speculation. On a regular basis, their owners trigger attacks against currencies that appear weak, often causing them to be devaluated. Cases in point are the Swedish krona, the pound sterling, the Brazilian real and the Mexican peso.

When I read this kind of thing in L'Actualité , where economist Pierre Fortin tells us that speculators are attacking currencies, I would like to know what mounting an attack on a currency means. I am not talking about hypothetical things.

Last summer, the Canadian dollar lost 10 cents due to speculation. I am wondering who is attacking and who is mounting the attack. I believe this is worthy of debate.

The list of reasons why it is urgent to take such steps is quite long. I believe that when the House wants parliament to foster such debates internationally to bring about international regulations, we must agree with that.

This leads me to an issue dear to me. I believe the economy is currently in mutation. For example, with regard to speculation, 30 years ago only 5% of financial operations were of a speculative nature. Today, this proportion is as high as 90% to 95%. This is a lot. This means that a huge part of our economy is at the mercy of such fluctuations and so-called attacks.

This worries me and this fact is not the only one I find troublesome; there are a number of other ones which are linked to the globalization of the economy.

I believe this is linked to globalization. Make no mistake, I am not against globalization. But I want people to understand what it is all about. It seems to me that, for the first time in history, we as a society are faced with a very complex situation, and it is extremely important for us to understand it.

In the same spirit as this motion, one battle I am trying to wage in this Parliament is to see to it that the members of this House understand this phenomenon, that they have a perfect understanding of what we are experiencing as a society with regard to globalization, particularly with regard to what is going on right now in financial markets.

Last December, I presented a petition signed by 50,000 people asking their elected representatives to reflect on this phenomenon. I think it is a very legitimate request. It is perfectly normal.

The study of a mechanism to prevent financial speculation or to clean up financial markets is essential. I am happy that we can take part in such a debate today because I think it is of the utmost importance for countries and for society.

I cannot speak on this issue without also talking about civil society, which is mobilizing all over the world to make such debates happen. There is Atac, in France, a movement that is taking international proportions. Here in Canada, there is the CCIC and the Halifax initiative. In fact, there are numerous groups promoting debate on this kind of issues in civil society, in Parliament and soon, I hope, in international forums.

In conclusion, I will quote world famous speculator George Soros, who has taken advantage of the chaotic international financial system. He said “If people like me can bring down governments, it means something is wrong with the system. My experience with markets has shown that they often had a tendency to be unstable. If we do not take measures to stabilize them, serious accidents will occur”. Obviously these are financial accidents.

This quote is from the October 24, 1996 issue of L'Express .

These are not leftist remarks. Even the greatest speculators in the world say that danger is lurking right now. I rarely say such things, but I am doing so today with all my heart in the interest of current and future generations.

If we want to have a global economy, we must have rules. Just like in hockey or in life, rules are essential. Right now, it seems that the lack of rules in this system and the lack of understanding by parliamentarians have resulted in carelessness, which has caused a lot of turbulence in financial markets.

That is why I will vote in favour of this motion today.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform Party said earlier that what we need is action, not more studies. I will point out to him that, sometimes, a good understanding of what is going on can help us be more coherent in our actions.

The Carter commission of 1962 was mentioned earlier. We heard that it was an exemplary commission whose recommendations were not followed up.

It may be good to see where this is all coming from. It has been proven that in some countries, including Canada, the tax system is no longer progressive. It is no longer true that the poorer you are, the less tax you pay, and vice versa. Middle class Canadians do pay a great amount of tax.

In a study released in 1994, Mr. Mimoto, an economist, said, with regard to—

[Petitions, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table a petition.

The petitioners are greatly distressed by the widening gap between rich and poor, and ask Parliament to form a parliamentary committee whose mandate would be to examine Canadian parliamentarians' ability to reduce the gap between rich and poor in the new context created by globalization and to propose specific solutions.

[Violence Against Women, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me read into the record the opinion of an author quoted by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who overturned an Alberta court judgment acquitting a person accused of sexual assault.

One of the myths about rape is the idea that women dream about being raped; that even when they say no, they mean yes; that any woman could fend off a rapist if she really wanted to; that women often deserve to be raped because of their behaviour, the way they dress or their attitude; and that it is worse to be raped by a stranger than by an acquaintance.

As members know, this ruling was the subject of much discussion. However, you will agree that, discuss as we may, the distress of sexual assault victims can never be adequately expressed.

On this International Women's Week, we must take a long look at our collective responsibility regarding violence against women.

The controversy surrounding the Ewanchuk ruling must not obscure the primary message sent by the supreme court on February 25, namely that “no means no”.

[Petitions, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, today, a petition in which the petitioners express to the House their great distress that the gap between rich and poor continues to widen despite the economic growth in recent years.

Accordingly, the petitioners ask Parliament to agree to strike a parliamentary committee whose specific mandate would be to examine Canadian parliamentarians' ability to reduce the gap between rich and poor in the new context created by globalization and to propose concrete solutions.

[Petitions, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with considerable emotion, I table today a petition supporting the debate I tried to initiate when I left the House with my chair.

This petition is signed by 50,000 people and reads as follows:

“We the undersigned hereby express to the House our great distress that the gap between rich and poor continues to widen despite the economic growth in recent years; that this situation has a significant impact on our quality of live; and that our House of Commons representatives' ability to act for the public good seems to be limited by the economic laws dictated by globalization.

Accordingly, your petitioners ask Parliament to form a parliamentary committee whose mandate would be to examine Canadian parliamentarians' ability to reduce the gap between rich and poor in the new context created by globalization and to propose specific solutions.”

I would like to thank, in closing, all those who have helped circulate this petition.

[Victims Of Gulf War Syndrome, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Maurice Bédard, a member of the military in my riding, who retired after 26 years in the Canadian forces, continues to believe, like several of his former colleagues, that the federal government is not taking adequate action to shed light on the health problems of those who claim to be victims of gulf war syndrome.

Since several members of the armed forces remain skeptical about the impartiality of the Canadian forces in revealing the circumstances that triggered this syndrome, would it not be appropriate to have a commission of inquiry, independent from the Department of National Defence, look into this issue?

As a member of the UN security council, Canada has a moral obligation not to leave any doubt regarding the equality of treatment provided to its own military personnel.

This is what Mr. Bédard wants to reaffirm by asking me to return to the Government of Canada, through this House, the medals he was awarded during the gulf war. From now on, these medals will be associated with shame, not pride, in the minds of many.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address Bill C-53, the Canada Small Business Financing Act.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of these businesses by allocating, between the minister and lenders, portions of eligible losses incurred by lenders in relation to loans of up to $250,000 to such businesses for those purposes.

The government will continue to be liable for 85% of the losses on outstanding loans, with the rest being the lender's responsibility.

It is essential that this program designed to help young entrepreneurs be well understood. It provides young or potential entrepreneurs looking for financing with the necessary guarantee or backing to secure a bank loan.

You just go to the bank and, if you do not have a house to offer as collateral, the federal government will guarantee up to 85% of the amount borrowed up to $250,000.

This bill ensures that the SBLA program will remain unchanged. For those who used it in the past, there is hardly any change. We in the Bloc Quebecois take the matter seriously because we know for a fact that small and medium size businesses play a pivotal role in creating jobs. That is why we did not take this lightly. We went so far as to develop a questionnaire that we distributed to businesses. That is what I did in my riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.

I wrote to all the businesses in my riding that had availed themselves of this program for small businesses. Who would be in a better position to tell us whether this program is efficient or not?

That is why businesses were asked “In view of your own experience and what you have seen, would you say that it is easy, difficult, or very difficult for small businesses to get financing?”

Some 87% of people in my riding say it is difficult or very difficult. We know that money is the lifeblood of any business that is just starting up. And we are being told that it is still difficult to get money.

We then asked whether businesses know the SBLA, and, if so, whether they think it should be improved. No less that 98% of respondents said it should be improved. That is a telling tale.

Here is another question we asked “Do you think loans should be granted for working capital as well as for equipment and capital and movable assets?”

This is an rather important question, because we know for a fact that working capital is crucial for a business that is starting up and that the lack of it can have dire consequences. Some businesspeople end up having to put up their personal assets as collateral, which is not always interesting.

Eighty-eight per cent of respondents said that the loans should also cover working capital.

The next question was “From your experience and from what you see around you, do you think the development of small and medium size businesses would be easier if they had greater access to credit at a reasonable cost and to management counselling?”

Of course, following the same logic, 96% of respondents said it would be easier.

The last question was: “Would there be fewer bankruptcies if businesses had greater access to credit?” Ninety per cent of respondents said yes, there would be fewer bankruptcies.

I want to thank the respondents, the entrepreneurs of my riding, who helped me with these questions. It really helped me see things more clearly. I had also sent them a few questions on the proposed bank mergers, an issue of interest to everybody.

Earlier, my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques talked about the social role of banks. Banks and other lending institutions have an extremely important role in that if they reject the application of an entrepreneur, it means that it will be difficult for that prospective business to become a reality. So there are very important issues at stake.

I feel strongly about Bill C-53 because I, myself, took a course on how to start up a business. After a first career in aviation, I wanted to do what a lot of people were doing, that is to start up my own business. So I decided to take a course on how to start up a business in order to have a good knowledge and understanding of each and every step of that process. There are several of them.

Everybody agrees, and we heard it many times, that small and medium size businesses are essential to job creation. Right now, unfortunately, large businesses are not the main creators of jobs. We see a lot of large business mergers which, in most cases, result in a significant number of layoffs. I say in most cases because we have the statistics to prove it. Fortunately, things are always different in my region.

In the Lac-Saint-Jean region, we have the new Alcan project, which is worth $2.6 billion and will be the largest private investment in Canada and even in eastern North America. It is a major project that will secure the existing jobs and create about 250 new ones. All of this will of course generate economic activity.

Before entering politics, I had started the process of launching a business. I did not complete it, of course, since I entered politics. That business is somewhat different, but there are similarities. I made small business one of my hobby horses, because I feel that regions like mine, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, which was developed mostly by large companies, should nevertheless diversify their economy and trust the entrepreneurial potential of their citizens to create employment. We will never have enough.

In regions like mine, as in all remote areas around the world, people are leaving. If we could start small businesses of our own and thus create jobs, it would be great, because that is what everybody wants. I will always remember the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques saying that the best way of distributing wealth remained the creation of jobs.

But how are jobs created? Governments often suggest that they will create so many jobs. But who creates these jobs directly? This is clearly the work of those in the field, provided of course that they have the necessary resources and assistance. This is where it becomes important to show solidarity as a community and to provide young entrepreneurs with efficient tools. By “young” I mean new entrepreneurs because, as my colleague pointed out earlier, many people who retire in their 50s want to start their own business. So, this is very important.

There is a basic fact about entrepreneurs that we must understand: not everyone can start a business. According to the psychological profiles that were developed, between 10% and 15% of the general population has the entrepreneurial potential required to start a business. This is extremely important.

The number one prerequisite is entrepreneurial potential, followed by knowledge, skills or services targeting a specific market niche, to ensure that there will be a market for the new small business, which will be creating jobs. Funding is also required, of course. It is an essential element, especially for young entrepreneurs who, more often than not, do not have a house to offer as collateral against a loan and who do not necessarily receive money from their friends and family. So, financing is still extremely important.

The bill is interesting because it maintains the current Small Business Loans Program which, I remind the business people back home, helps the entrepreneurs who do not necessarily have the money, the car or the house to put up as security to get a loan guaranteed at 85% by the government.

So, this is an extremely interesting piece of legislation. However, from a constructive point of view, I think the bill could have further increased the availability of financing for small businesses. It could also have helped businesses with their working capital, in that the loans could have been used as working capital. This is what the businesses in my region told us in a poll.

In a nutshell, this is a good bill and we will vote in favour of it. But there are still some provisions that could have been improved.