Stéphan Tremblay

[Globalization, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I tabled in this House a motion calling for the creation of a special committee to look into the effects of globalization on social cohesiveness.

My question, which involves a number of departments, will therefore be directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not believe that he must set an example and establish this parliamentary committee as quickly as possible?

[Petitions, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House several hundreds of petitions from people asking the House to strike a committee to look into the impact of globalization.

A debate has to take place. A debate will in fact take place even if the House rejected the idea this morning, because I will set up a consultation process with the civil society, with or without the parliamentarians,. I encourage all the parliamentarians who want to participate to do so.

Members will see that people from Lac-Saint-Jean do not give up that easily.

[Globalization Of Economies, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, is it not wonderful to see how this simple issue is generating a rather heated debate in which various opinions are being expressed? This is good, in my opinion, because what I am proposing is a non-partisan review committee.

When I left with my seat, I did not tell my party what I was going to do, because I wanted to show members of this House that this was a non-partisan issue. We are fortunate to have here five political parties with various ideologies. Could we not benefit from that situation and get opinions and views from all these sources?

I am the youngest member in this House. Many here know that I wonder what kind of society we will have in 20 or 30 years, when I will be the same age as most members now in this House. I think we have to think about that or, at least, have a vote—this is all I am asking—because we would learn from it. In any case, we will have to think about it, perhaps a few years, but for now we must support this idea.

The issue is not whether we are for or against globalization. The issue is that we must understand it, to be able to act, play a role in the world, propose solutions at the international level. This parliament could exercise such leadership, and it would be fantastic.

This is why no member of this House should go against the will of 50,000 citizens, and possibly many more, because there are many more— This is why I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to make Motion M-41 a votable item.

[Globalization Of Economies, November 29th, 1999]

moved:

That this House strike a special parliamentary committee with the specific objective of considering the repercussions of the globalization of economies on governments' autonomy in preserving social cohesiveness.

Madam Speaker, I am most anxious to have an opportunity to speak to day. I have alerted my colleagues to the fact that, at the end of this hour of debate, they will have to reach a decision, one that I consider quite important.

I would remind my colleagues that during the debate I will be providing them with a copy of the letter I sent to them last Wednesday explaining the situation. The topic of today's debate is of such importance to me that, on April 20, 1998, I took the risk of laying my position as an MP on the line, in order to make the public aware of the need for a public debate on the issue addressed in today's motion.

When I carried my chair away with me, hon. members will recall that I did so in order to provoke a debate on society's ability to reduce the gap between rich and poor within a context of global markets. Hon. members are aware, moreover, that this situation seems to be getting worse. Poverty is quietly but constantly increasing, while at the same time the economy is growing without seeming to have any impact on society.

My concern about this widening gap between rich and poor is based on the threat this represents to social cohesion. I would remind hon. members that social cohesion is the feeling of solidarity that unifies all people regardless of their social and economic status.

Last Wednesday, we celebrated—although celebrated hardly seems to be the appropriate term—the tenth anniversary of parliament's choice to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. After a decade, after ten whole years, what has become of this? Poverty has not even remained at the same level; it has increased. Is it a matter of political will? I hope not, since the House has said it wanted to eliminate this poverty. Is it a matter of political power? That is the question. Are there certain phenomena that take away governments' autonomy? The question needs to be asked.

With political power being national, and the laws we pass here being national, it is high time we realized that we are living in a period of great change, as the economy is becoming a global one. This is to be expected since in recent decades, thanks to technological developments, access to transportation and telecommunications is improved, thus reducing distances and opening the door to incredible possibilities, including that of trading with the rest of the world, which is now accessible to us.

Trade and the economy are being globalized and the production of wealth is increasing. These new approaches are not, however, without consequence. There are positive aspects as well as more negative ones. Would it, for example, be realistic to think that national tax rules established by national governments are increasingly difficult to apply in a global economy? I am not the only one to think so, since the former secretary general of the OECD, Kimon Valaskakis, said the following in La Presse on October 29:

The principle of redistribution is at the very heart of ordinary social policy in a country and is expressed in fiscal terms. But since globalization, redistribution is much more difficult to put into practice. On the national level, it imposes a fairly high social cost. The need to compete forces governments to reduce their payroll taxes and thus their capacity to redistribute wealth, which in turn increases inequities rather than reducing them.

There is another vital issue and that is the fact that we have gone from an industrial economy to an economy 90% of which is controlled by speculation, distorting to some degree the global financial market as in the cases of the recent financial crises in Mexico, Asia, Brazil and Russia. There seem to be economic problems in terms of redistribution, but not in terms of the creation of wealth. Are international authorities continuing to respond to the needs of the people in these instances? Does parliament, our national authority, continue to meet the needs of the people?

In short, a lot of questions and issues remain to be analyzed, since, whether we want it or not, globalization is here and growing. And, whether we like it or we do not, we cannot ignore it.

This is why it is important to understand in order to act. Right now certain things are becoming global, while others are not, and this creates an imbalance.

Globalization may be unavoidable, but the way to achieve it is not. It is still, I hope, under the control of democracies. It is up to us to shape it, and this is why we must hold a public debate to help everyone, particularly us parliamentarians, get a better grasp of what is going on.

This is why I am in favour of establishing a process to consult civil society, a means of thinking about this whole issue. With a committee, we will have the benefit of the public's views.

I am not alone in this belief. This idea does have support. Over 50,000 people across the country—and not all from my riding—signed the petition asking that a committee be struck, asking that their elected representatives simply look at certain issues. These 50,000 people are not asking for extraordinary tax measures or for new legislation. They are asking us their elected representatives to do our job. They are asking us to reflect on the changes that we are currently experiencing. This idea is also supported by over 200 organizations across the country and also, and perhaps more importantly, by one third of the members of this House. Indeed, 100 members of parliament signed this document, asking that the request be treated as a priority item in Private Members Business.

If the signature of these members still means something in this House, it would make sense to deal with this issue in a serious fashion. I should also point out that these 100 members of parliament represent all the parties in this House.

This issue should be treated as a priority. As I said, I am not the only one who holds that view. I am not pro-Senate, like some of my colleagues, but during its study on social cohesiveness, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology acknowledged that part of the difficulty in addressing this issue is that much basic analytical and empirical work on the consequences of globalization remains to be done.

The committee has concluded that one of the next steps for political leaders is to begin to give some objective consideration to new ways of thinking and doing.

Some members will probably say that there is enough talk about globalization. I admit that it comes up frequently; in fact, at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which dealt with the World Trade Organization, we discussed globalization, except that we came at it strictly from the point of view of trade and economic competitiveness.

So, yes, I think it is a good idea to discuss it from this angle. In fact, I congratulate the committee, which was relatively open to all points of view. However, in the long run, such a study must be accompanied by a more in-depth examination of the social impacts of globalization.

In my view, there cannot be one without the other. They go hand in hand. We are on the eve of a very important day, the beginning of what I would describe as another step towards globalization—the WTO talks. And yet, many people throughout the world right now, including people in Montreal, seem inclined to oppose the talks and to call for a moratorium.

I do not know who is right, but what I do know is that there is a widening gap between our political positions and what society in general thinks and, therefore, striking such a committee would be a useful means of engaging in a collective dialogue, so that we will all be on the same wavelength.

We must take this opportunity and show leadership internationally, because the possible solutions suggested by such a committee could eventually be implemented worldwide.

Besides, would the Minister of Finance, as the chairman of the new G-20, not profit from the establishment of this parliamentary committee, since he could benefit from the expertise provided by the representatives of the civil society who would come before the committee to be heard? This form of consultation is in direct agreement with the goals of the G-20 countries which, I remind the hon. members, are committed to making every effort needed to turn the benefits of globalization into increased incomes and better opportunities for their peoples.

We have a problem here today. In spite of the obvious support from the population and the parliamentarians, in spite of the fact that the motion and the issue have never been more topical, and in spite of the fact that the motion meets all the criteria for the selection of votable items, because of outdated, anachronistic, outmoded and ill adapted parliamentary procedures, Motion M-41 was not selected as a votable item on account of prerogatives related to quotas and random draw.

Clearly, if we cannot vote on the motion, it will automatically be dropped from the Order Paper. This would be like throwing it in the trash can. I do not want to put the parliamentary system on trial today, but I do know that a good many members realize that a reform of this institution would be a good thing. But this is not the issue.

What is important is that, even now, members present in the House have the opportunity to reverse this decision. We have the opportunity to correct this technical incident simply by supporting my request for unanimous consent.

I will first listen what my colleagues present here have to say. Meanwhile, I will send them a copy of the letter that I sent them last Wednesday, on the 10th anniversary of the motion on poverty. If, because of a translation problem, they were unable to understand everything I said, I hope they will read it.

During the last five minutes, when I avail myself of my right to reply, I will try to answer my colleagues and I will also ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow two more hours of debate on this motion, because it deserves further examination. I will ask that it be deemed votable, so we can, as members of parliament, do our duty, which is to make decisions. It is sad that members of parliament sometimes deprive themselves of the power to make decisions and to vote.

In short, my goal today is not to condemn the parliamentary system. I have other colleagues, especially the member for Longueuil, who are considering that issue.

What is important is to be aware of the social changes we are experiencing. I am not the only one to say this. The Senate report says this. Petitioners say this. Parliamentarians and experts from all over say this. I could go on for another hour about all the people who have expressed support for this motion.

I want the House to prove to me that we can save face in this parliament. Prove to me that there is still democracy in this country. I want the House to prove to me that this authority, the parliament, can still respond to the current expectations and the expectations of the citizens. It is as if everyone in an olympic stadium were asking us to take an issue into consideration.

I will listen to what my colleagues have to say and then I will ask them a question.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, is that what they call flexible federalism? If I were a federalist, I would consider flexibility as an asset, because each province could have its own system and become a testing ground of sorts.

But this bill is all for standardization, and it will eliminate good programs. What a disgrace, in my opinion.

Do you think a 14 year old who never reads a paper and does not know what is going on in politics will say to himself before committing any crime that, with Bill C-3, if he commit a crimes, he will spend more time in prison? Let us get real. It will not change anything.

Very often, young criminals are economically disadvantaged, they are less educated and are not too well informed. Do you think stiffer legislation will have an impact?

Studies in the U.S. confirm this. Stiffer legislation does not reduce the crime rate. I am all the more troubled by this because I am the youngest member in the House. If we do not deal with our young criminals the way we should and if we send them to the school for crime, we will be turning them into real criminals. Since they are young, we will have to put up with them for many more years to come, and fighting against crime will cost us even more.

I think this bill goes against common sense. I cannot overstate how much it goes against common sense. I would like to ask the members in the House to take note of the numbers, of the consensus and of a way of doing things that has been proven to work. This bill does not make any sense.

If the rest of Canada wishes to do as it pleases, if it believes that there is a better way, let it do so, I have nothing against that. But I cannot accept the rejection of a way of doing things that has been proven successful. It is not perfect, of course, and we are trying to improve it, but I think the rest of Canada should have followed this example.

Unfortunately, I have the impression that, for political reasons, the justice minister only wishes to show us that she is backing down, or that this is the Liberals' balanced approach. Maybe she wants to show us, like Reform, that the Liberals can give a little to the left, a little to the right, I do not know. I do not know what is going on in the minister's head, but I find it unfortunate, and I am disappointed.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is Quebec's approach is original. It works, and the numbers are there to prove it, and it seems to me that Quebec ought to be able to continue with this approach. If the rest of Canada wants to deal more severely with its young offenders, so be it. It does not bother me. What I want, and this is why I seek the unanimous consent of the House, is for Quebec to be allowed to continue to proceed in its own way, and the rest of Canada to do as it pleases.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address today such an important issue.

A renowned geneticist, Albert Jacquard, once said that a prison in a city means that there is something wrong in that city.

Today, we are dealing with a somewhat special kind of crime, youth crime. I think we all want to reduce crime in our communities. Obviously, this is a worthy and desirable goal. However, I do have some misgivings and some concerns about the measures to reduce crime.

We are dealing today with Bill C-3, which proposes a system I cannot agree with. Previously, when young offenders were arrested, they got some kind of special treatment. Instead of sending offenders under 18 years of age directly to prison, we directed them towards different facilities, in the hope that they would be able to get back on to the right track.

What this bill says is that we want to treat young offenders more harshly, to treat them as adults, depending, of course, on the seriousness of the crime. Yet we have to understand what impact that could have. I know there are hon. members here in this House, or members of their family, who have been victims of crime. And I know how frustrated or vindictive they must feel.

When we see these deplorable crimes reported on the front page of the newspaper, we have every right to think that it does not make sense and that something must be done. I agree, except that the easy way to solve this problem is to say that these young criminals must pay. They must pay like adults do and must be held responsible. There is certainly some logic in thinking this way, but actually it is false, and the statistics are there to prove it. Instead of talking about harsher sentences for young offenders, we should be talking about the root cause of crime.

Next week, we will be celebrating—although it will not really be a celebration—the tenth anniversary of the House's resolve to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Child poverty has nearly doubled since the House expressed that resolve. Why I am saying that? Because sometimes, and very often in disadvantaged areas, young people are unable to benefit from the physical and moral support of their father and mother. These young people are more likely than others to become juvenile delinquents.

I think there is a connection between the increase in poverty and the increase in crime. It may be the most important factor, and what we really should be discussing today are issues related to the root cause of crime. Unfortunately, we are not doing that because the minister has introduced a bill which will provide for harsher sentences, which I think will in no way benefit society.

If we lock up a young offender with other criminals, we are sending him to a school for crimes. He will be with individuals, young people and criminals, who are already frustrated with society, and who do not necessarily feel like respecting it. It is a little bit like sending him to a school for crimes.

I would rather we talked about alternatives to the prison system instead of contemplating putting a bandage on a wound. Yes, there is a wound; yes, crime is a problem. But let us see how we can heal the wound rather than putting a bandage on it, hoping it will solve the problem. I cannot support this approach.

What I am saying today is not born out of emotion, it is borne out by facts. My colleagues mentioned it before me: in Quebec we have had, and still have, a more preventative way of dealing with young offenders, in order to rehabilitate them. It works. The numbers are there to prove it. We have them. We can prove, based on statistics, that our way is better. I do not like to quantify human behaviour, but in this case, it clearly shows that the approach of Quebec is the best in Canada.

The bill that is before us today would have us believe that we should set all that aside, that its way of doing things is the right way. Unfortunately, its approach, which owes something to the Reform Party, is going to become law.

I believe it is deplorable, especially since in Quebec there is a consensus against this bill. If the federation were as flexible as some people claim, we, in Quebec, could say: if you want to try this approach, go ahead. But we, in Quebec, have our own approach, we believe in it and we want to carry on and even improve it, and we would like to have the opportunity and the freedom to maintain our approach toward crime.

This is why I seek unanimous consent so that Quebec can opt out of this measure and continue to ensure its criminals are dealt with the same way as today.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House.

[Employment Insurance, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the federalists have long held that Quebec received far more in EI benefits than it paid out in premiums.

But today, the federalists can no longer use this argument to turn a deaf ear to Quebec, which is claiming its fair share of federal structural spending.

Since 1995, Quebec has put more into the EI plan than it has taken out.

In 1995, Quebecers paid $4.477 billion in premiums, but drew only $4.343 billion in benefits.

In 1996, they paid $4.475 billion in premiums and received $4.122 billion in benefits.

In 1997, the shortfall was $1 billion. And finally, in 1998, Quebecers again put almost $1 billion more into the plan than they drew out.

In four years, Quebec has contributed over $2 billion more than it has received, and the federalists have fallen silent. It is high time that government members began demanding that Quebec receive its fair share of structural spending.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, November 16th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table a bill to change the name of the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean to Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

On polling, 70% of my constituents were in favour of changing the name so the Saguenay portion of my riding could be representing in the riding's name.

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

[Genetically Altered Foods, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Section 5 of the Department of Industry Act provides that the minister shall exercise his powers and perform his duties “in a manner that will promote the interests and protection of Canadian consumers”.

In order to guarantee consumers proper information on the food they consume, would do the minister promise in this House to make it mandatory to label genetically altered foods, yes or no?