Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant question.
I spoke earlier about young people's involvement in politics. When I refer to young people, I include those at university who are more and more overwhelmed by their studies and work. I think there is a lack of involvement.
At my college in Alma, I try to hold mini-debates. I meet with students. I tell them that what is going on concerns us all and that there will be consequences of this for the rest of their lives, so it is important to deal with it now.
It is the foundation of my political commitment. When I was first elected, I was 22 years old. I told myself that the decisions taken today would have consequences throughout our lives. That is why it is important to have a balance between youth and experience in the House. I think that unfortunately, whether it is through lack of time or because they have too many responsibilities, young people do not participate enough in the debate. That is what I think: they are not sufficiently involved.
If you tell me that they participate as much as they did 20 years ago, it is not enough. We are facing challenges on a scale never seen before. We need creativity and imagination in order to face up to these challenges; we need everyone.
At one university I was told “Look, Stéphan, university is no place for politics”. If university is no place for politics, where can we be political other than in the House of Commons?
I think there is a serious problem, perhaps because the media do a poor job of covering politics, or because they only cover the bickering that goes on during question period; whatever the reason, there is a malaise in the democratic process. I feel that this issue is highly pertinent.
I would also like to tell you what is happening in Quebec. Surveys conducted during the Quebec youth summit revealed that globalization issues are of the highest priority for young people 19 to 24 years of age. This is something new. The day before yesterday I celebrated my fifth anniversary in politics, and I know that when I started there was not this degree of interest. Interest in such issues has therefore grown, and I think this is a very good thing.
In my opinion, our role as parliamentarians is to see the students and listen to their points of view. When I refer to chapter 11 of NAFTA, who knows what I am talking about? I can tell the public that, under chapter 11 of NAFTA and perhaps even under the free trade agreement of the Americas, a corporation unhappy with the legislation passed by a government will be able to take legal action against that government. This has already happened and is still happening. I believe one of the most recent cases involved a municipality in Mexico taken to court because it was establishing environmental rules. When I see that companies can now take legal action against countries, I have to ask myself some serious questions. It is my role to meet with students and the general public and to explain to them what is going on.
If we had debates, we could talk about these issues. We are having a debate now, but with all due respect to my colleagues who are here tonight it is really only a semblance of a debate. In any event, there is an enormous amount of work to do.
Let us hope that young people show an interest in these issues. Moreover, there was a reason why I carried my chair out of the House. I was trying to make a point in a way people would remember. I was trying to tell young people that here was an issue that threatened democracy.
If in fact parliamentarians have fewer powers in an era of globalization, then should we address this problem? All of democracy is threatened in the process. I am not saying that democracy has disappeared. We need only travel to certain Latin American nations where democracy is seriously undermined to see that our problems are quite different. However, does this mean that I should disregard what is happening here at home and pretend that everything is fine? No.
I wonder about the kind of society I will be living in twenty years from now. When I look at what is going on, I am concerned and I have a duty to convey my concerns to the public.
That is why I felt it was important to launch a debate involving the whole society. Three years later, I find myself again at 1.30 in the morning demanding greater transparency and democracy.
We still have quite a way to go. That is why I will continue to make the rounds of CEGEPs and universities and to debate these issues. I encourage young people to follow the debate, to become politicized and to criticize the system in a constructive way.
Next April 20, there will be protesters in the streets. I have talked to people my own age who have told me “Listen, Stéphan, if these kinds of things are going to happen, then I prefer to be run over”. This is what informed young people have been telling me. I have talked with them and they are well informed. They are prepared to get arrested.
The fact remains that there is a problem. Either they are wrong, or there is a communications problem, with the public not understanding the government's decisions. Unquestionably, there is a problem.