Stéphan Tremblay

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments because setting up businesses and entrepreneurship are issues of great importance to me.

Before becoming a politician, I took a course on how to start up a business. This program was designed to help people with business ideas to get ahead, help them to develop a business plan, seek financing and, finally, help them reach the crucial stage, which is the setting up of their business.

The various stages of setting up a business are quite important, in my opinion, and I am familiar with them. Furthermore, it was one of my favorite themes, mainly on the regional level, when I entered politics.

I represent the riding of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, a region which has been greatly developed by big business. Even nowadays, we are still very happy that big business has decided to reinvest in our region. The largest private investment project in Canada and in North America is located in Alma, in my riding.

Sometimes, it is said that the uncertainty chases investors away. But it can truly be said that it is not the case in Alma. A very interesting partnership has developed among several stakeholders, namely unions, people who contacted the plant, etc. It is a real breath of fresh air for us, but I still say that we should not rely solely on big business for regional development. We should diversify our economy. The establishment of small and medium size businesses can play a major role in job creation.

In fact, this is what I am still doing. I encourage people in my region to try to set up their own business. If the economy is going well, it is even easier for SMEs to develop very precise niches in order to meet the needs of big business.

This is undoubtedly an avenue we should encourage as much as possible at the regional level.

A few weeks ago, I was at the gala of the Haut-Saguenay CFDC. In that area, people are working very closely together. In very small municipalities, the establishment of one or two businesses can make an enormous difference for the local economy.

In Alma, which is at the eastern tip of my riding, we set up a single window office one year ago. For many potential small businessmen, the difficulty is to get to know where to access know-how and financing. People do not know where to go to get technical and financial support. We have therefore created a single window office where every potential small businessman can get advice.

Everyone in this House is in favour of job creation. I certainly want to see jobs created in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. As my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, the best way to distribute wealth remains job creation. In this respect employment remains a matter of dignity for every individual. It is therefore extremely important.

What does it take to start up a business in order to eventually create employment: highly specialized skills, research, development, technical training, marketing intelligence, market research, distribution, production and sales? In the end, when the products or services are marketed, jobs will be generated.

As we can see, there are several stages in the job creation process, and small business people can appreciate the problems associated with starting up a business.

That is not all small business is about, and this is a debate we take to heart, especially as it relates to diversity. It is often said that small is beautiful. Small and medium size businesses often succeed in finding very specific opportunities in very specific markets. That is the beauty of the market economy. It has been criticized by many people today, starting with myself. I do blame on the market economy a number of current trends, including the trend to merge companies. Businesses tend more and more to merge, and it seems that this tends to kill diversity.

Small businesses are bucking this trend. They bring diversity and healthy competition to the economy. This is good for everyone.

When I talk about mergers and I look ten years into the future, I sometimes wonder where this will lead us. It often reminds me of the game that taught me capitalism, the game of Monopoly. Everybody starts off with the same amount of money, but the player who succeeds in buying everyone else's property as the game progresses is the winner. These are things we must think about in our economic system.

Starting up a business requires considerable resources. One method I recommend is the blending of knowledge, expertise, ideas and money. Two years ago, I designed a program aimed in that direction, because I knew perfectly well that, normally, it takes a business idea to start up a business. Not everyone has business ideas.

One needs to have business acumen, and this is something that needs to be demystified. It is estimated that 10% of the population has some business acumen, which means that they want to expand their horizons and want to be their own boss. Taking on such a responsibility is not for everyone.

I think we need to bring together people who have business ideas with people who have some business acumen and, of course, people with money problems, and that brings us to the very heart of the matter, which is the financing issue. When starting up a business, money is everything and one of the biggest problems is the financing, which is addressed in this bill.

When the hon. member for Mercier brought this piece of legislation to our attention, I thought it important to consult with businesses back home who probably had had dealings with the Small Business Loans Program.

It could be useful to potential business owners to know that the purpose of this bill is to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of—

[World Financial Market, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the rise of a new philosophy in world financial markets.

After the Mexican financial crisis in 1995, the Asian crisis, whose effects we are still feeling, the problems in Russia and the turbulence in Latin America, a new trend is developing.

It is now clear to us, as it was already to George Soros, the most prolific speculator in the world, and to hard-line free trade economists, that we must attempt to control large-scale movements of capital within the global economy. That having been said, although everyone has identified the problem, different solutions are being recommended.

One solution that could be tried is that of professor James Tobin, winner of the Nobel prize for economics, who suggests a small tax on currency transactions to reduce runaway speculation. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of such a tax, as shown by our support for Motion M-239 introduced by our New Democratic Party colleague.

It is high time that parliamentarians had a better understanding of these economic phenomena so that we can moderate their negative impact and avoid a financial crisis.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have one comment to make following the speech by my colleague, who mentioned many interesting facts.

First of all, it is very important to note that my colleague is himself an accountant. Therefore when he speaks about the finance minister's accounting practices, I trust him fully. When the auditor general himself questions the way the finance minister applies accounting standards, we have every right to wonder.

My colleague also talked about millennium scholarships. I have worked on this issue, and I can say I have seen all kinds of weird things. First, education is an area under provincial jurisdiction. It is an area of jurisdiction over which Quebec has full authority. What is the federal government doing with its surplus, the result of cuts to the provinces? What it takes with one hand it gives back with the other in an area over which it has no jurisdiction. I find this totally absurd.

I believes it lowers efficiency. I said earlier that one of the problems with federalism is that it leads to competition among governments; they compete with their programs. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged this measure was aimed in part at increasing federal visibility. I had asked the question of the Prime Minister, who replied “When we send a cheque to students, we want them to know where it comes from”. It is sad to play politics that way.

I could say a lot more about the millennium scholarships, especially the fact that the management of something public is being entrusted to a private body. I wonder where democracy is going. The democratic deficit and eroding political power are things that concern me a lot, as I tend to see them in terms of globalization of the economy.

But when, in this chamber, elected representatives are voluntarily renouncing their powers, I think we have some serious problems.

I know this is not what this debate is about, but I wanted to point this out because when I hear about this it makes my hair stand on end.

The other point raised by my colleague is a crucial one. It deals with the physical and mental health of individuals, of our fellow citizens. The education and health services we provide them with are very important indeed.

I am running out of time, which is unfortunate, but I will conclude by saying that, in a democracy, it is extremely important that every citizen be able to point the finger at those responsible for the cuts. Right now, in most of the regions in this country, the people do not know if they should point the finger at the provincial or at the federal government, because in the end the cuts always seem to come from the next level up. And this, in my mind, undermines democracy.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would say, like my colleague, that it is quite fascinating to hear the questions from the members opposite.

In politics, especially here, in this House, I have to say that we see some rather amazing things. Politics is the art of managing our collective affairs, of organizing the ties that bind us together.

I notice that, sometimes, politics here is not really an art. The government sees that it has spent way too much money, that it has not taken good care of the nation's finances, and then it decides to try to eliminate the deficit. But when I say that politics is easy for the federal government, the only thing it has to do is to tell the provinces that they cost too much and that it will cut their transfer payments.

As a matter of fact, that does not come from me. The Prime Minister himself, when he was in France, said how easy it was in Canada to balance the budget simply by making cuts in transfer payments.

I know that a lot of people are not really familiar with politics, transfer payments or areas under provincial jurisdiction. About four years ago, I was one of them. Sometimes, when people watch the news and hear sovereignists say “no, this is an area under provincial jurisdiction”, it may seem somewhat difficult to understand.

But it is so simple and, at the same time, it shows us how difficult it is to run a machine like this government, because there are two governments that are competing not only in terms of programs, as my colleague from Rosemont was saying earlier, but also in the pursuit of fiscal balance.

When people ask what Quebec wants, all we want in the end is efficiency. I hope that when my constituents pay a tax dollar that it produces the best in services and in solidarity.

I know that a huge percentage of my tax dollar does not come back to the provinces. We know that it is within the provinces' jurisdiction to provide services directly to the public: health care, education and a social fabric.

So it is regrettable to see voters often criticizing the provincial governments. But we have to understand them. We have to see where that is coming from. It comes from here.

I have used up my time, but I will be back.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe taking the floor after my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who spoke eloquently, will not be an easy task.

I will say it once more, this bill reflects Canada's two solitudes, as the saying goes, two different visions.

Indeed, Bill C-54's thrust is quite different from the thrust of Quebec's legislation. The titles of both laws give us an important clue. Quebec's legislation is entitled an act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, and the federal legislation is entitled an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances.

While Quebec's law provides for the protection of privacy and applies to all organizations, the federal law applies only to commercial transactions.

Instead of presenting a real bill that would be aimed at protecting privacy in the private sector, the Minister of Industry is promoting electronic commerce, as his good friend at the OECD, Donald Johnston, is asking him to do, and he is again challenging the fundamental right to privacy.

Broadly speaking, the Minister of Industry is proposing a weak bill; the body of the law is to be found in its schedules and it does not give the commissioner any real power. Moreover, its form as well as its content will cause confusion; its wording will be wide open to interpretation; it will have a Henry VIII type clause, whereby the governor in council can amend the law without parliamentary debate and without democratic consultation.

This last point is crucial because its deprives us of a large part of our sovereignty as parliamentarians. One could talk a lot about all the changes made to parliamentary structures during the last few years. Let us mention, for example, the millennium scholarships that will be managed by a private foundation, as well as all the other organizations and foundations that are being created by the government and which, ultimately, with transfer political power to private institutions.

What is the use, I wonder. of electing people if those who form the government keep giving away powers to institutions that will manage certain programs without be accountable to the public. This really concerns me. Once again, that is what we will see with this bill.

Clause 27 says that:

The Governor in Council may make regulations to amend Schedule 1 to reflect revisions to the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information.

This clause fully gives the federal government the right to amend the bill by order in council without having to come back to parliament. It will thus be able to amend the legislation as a result of pressure from large Canadian corporations, since we know that neither consumers nor citizens organizations contribute to campaign funds of Canadian political parties.

The nationwide harmonization of legislation on this issue seems to be a major criterion for ensuring some consistency in the protection of personal information, but we were entitled to expect that the federal government would build on the four years of experience in Quebec in the protection of personal information. This is not what happened.

The Bloc Quebecois deplores that the government decided not to give the privacy commissioner the power to issue orders. This power, which is sadly missing from his capacity to carry out his responsibilities in the public sector, should have been formally provided for in the bill before us today. The absence of this provision will affect the credibility of this bill.

Moreover, we fear that, with these weaknesses in the bill, the minister will never be able to reach his primary objective, which is to promote consumers' confidence in the development of electronic commerce.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has no confidence whatsoever that the government will provide the privacy commissioner with the resources he needs to do the additional work that has been given to him in the bill.

We know, for example, that the Copyright Board, an organization that makes quasi judiciary decisions, did not get additional resources after passage of Bill C-32, that doubled its duties. Today, the industry minister is forcing it to consider cost recovery.

Earlier I mentioned that the federal government did not seem to have been inspired by the Quebec government's experience. What about that Quebec legislation?

In Quebec, this right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 1975. There is nothing ambiguous about section 5:

Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.

The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”, from which I will quote the following sections:

1. Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.

2. The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of privacy of a person:

(4) keeping his private life under observation by any means;

(5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other that the legitimate information of the public;

(6) using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.

1. Every person who establishes a file on another person shall have a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may gather only information which is relevant to the stated objective of the file, and may not, without the consent of the person concerned or authorization by law, communicate such information to third persons or use it for purposes that are inconsistent with the purposes for which the file was established. In addition, he may not, when establishing or using the file, otherwise invade the privacy or damage the reputation of the person concerned.

2. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person may, free of charge, examine and cause the rectification of a file kept on him by another person with a view to making a decision in his regard or to informing a third person; he may also cause a copy of it to be made at a reasonable cost. The information contained in the file shall be made accessible in an intelligible transcript.

3. A person keeping a file on a person may not deny him access to the information contained therein unless he has a serious and legitimate reason for doing so or unless the information is of a nature that may seriously prejudice a third person.

Moreover, the Quebec government is the only government in North America which legislated personal information protection in the public and private sectors. Experts state that the Quebec legislation governing the private sector is among the best in the world.

To have a better idea of the benefits of the Quebec law, here are a few of the provisions that could have been used as a model for the federal legislation.

First, the objectives of the law are better defined in the Quebec law, since privacy has to be protected regardless of any commercial concern.

Second, the Quebec law clearly covers all businesses, either profit-making or non-profit-making, while the federal legislation provides for personal information protection only within the framework of commercial transactions.

Third, the Quebec commissioner has the power to issue orders while the federal commissioner has no power whatsoever, as has been already demonstrated.

Section 45 of the Quebec law provides that a group of persons may appoint someone to represent them in a class action suit. There is no such clause in the federal legislation.

For the Minister of Industry, the stakes are clear: to ensure that Canada fully contributes to the global economy, particularly to the spectacular growth awaiting electronic commerce. The figures are astronomical: it is estimated that the global electronic market could skyrocket to $200 billion by the year 2000 from $2.6 billion U.S. in 1996.

Yet, the minister recognized at the last OECD conference in Ottawa that the main stumbling block to the development of electronic commerce was consumer confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I have a few minutes left and I deplore having to conclude my speech in what seems to be a very empty House. Is there not a provision in the Standing Orders of this House that requires a quorum?

Mr. Speaker, I call for a quorum count.

And the count having been taken:

[United Nations Development Program, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in early September, the United Nations Development Program submitted its world report on human development. This report, which used to serve as a political smoke screen to hide a country's social reality, will now have to be viewed as an indispensable tool to expose false political claims.

Indeed, the report indicates that the gap between rich and poor is a contemporary reality. It clearly states that, in the industrialized countries, it remains necessary to eradicate poverty and meet the basic needs of everyone. In fact, it is a shame that these objectives have still not been achieved in the richest countries.

Incidentally, the UN tells us that, when it comes to human poverty, Canada ranks 10th out of the 17 OECD members. There are more people living below the poverty line in Canada than in the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, France and Italy.

A study released this week confirms that this trend is continuing, in spite of the government's rhetoric. It is high time the government increased social transfers and improved the employment insurance program.

[Globalization, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of the political and economic community met this week to look at certain aspects of globalization in terms of economic imperatives at the world conference in Montreal.

The members of a popular lobby group, l'Opération Salami, vigorously expressed their resistance to globalization, which, according to them, is creating its share of injustice.

One phenomenon, two visions: a world where everything should be done to facilitate economic exchange, because it is the guarantee of prosperity, or a world where community well-being means protecting the social values that have come from democracy.

When groups demonstrate to such an extent to express their viewpoint, it is time for us, the politicians, to look at the phenomenon of globalization and especially at its impact on our social values.

This is tangible evidence that we parliamentarians should adopt the solution I recently proposed, which is to create a parliamentary committee to study the consequences of this new reality.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today, because it is probably the last time. I have only ten minutes, but I could talk for an hour.

Naturally, you will understand that, on the subject of Bill C-36, I will be talking about the millennium scholarships. In this bill, there is some pretty strong language, I must say.

My colleagues have spoken at length today on various matters concerning the bill on the millennium scholarship fund. Canadians ask us what Quebeckers want. It is so simple. As part of its values, Quebec decided to establish a loans and bursaries system—not a perfect one, I admit—but one that met the expectations of many young Quebeckers. It has been operating for years, and a number of students have told me that it is one of the most effective systems in Canada.

When I say that Quebeckers have values, I mean their values. We have never tried to impose these values on the rest of Canada. If another province wants to do what it wants with its loans and bursaries system, that is fine with me.

At one point, faced with a growing demand probably from the rest of Canada, the Prime Minister decided, saying he wanted to do his share, to make a bequest. He is attacking the problem of student debt. A very commendable thing to do. I have no complaint up to this point. Except that where things start to get serious, we have to make sure they are done responsibly and efficiently.

Creating the millennium scholarship foundation means creating duplication. There will be a system of loans and bursaries in Quebec City and another in Ottawa. This spells a loss of efficiency right off, in my opinion.

In addition, I recall asking the Prime Minister at one point if there was not a certain element of visibility involved. I think the federal government is looking for ways to leave its mark on the cheques. I must say I have no problem with that. It can leave its mark everywhere, so long as the students get help. The Prime Minister answered my question by saying that visibility was indeed involved. He could have pretended he wanted to help students without mentioning he wanted visibility, but no, he acknowledged it in the House of Commons. I could not believe my ears.

There are many points I could talk about. I will discuss some which have not been mentioned as often as they should. The Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be managed by a board of directors. This arm's length body will not be accountable to the people. It is as if we, the democratically elected members of Parliament, were to say that we are not responsible enough to be entrusted with managing such a huge amount of money, that we had better bring in people from the private sector who will undoubtedly do a much better job than us. But if people do not agree with this concept, they cannot go through their MPs, the very persons they elected. I have a moral problem with this.

Another point. Not only are we delegating our authority to a board of directors, but we do not know who they all are. I feel like I am signing a blank cheque. I have serious reservations about that.

Another point, the issue of equal opportunity. This bill is attacking some very basic principles our society is founded upon.

It is said these scholarship will not necessarily be based entirely on need, but also on merit. Today I sat on the committee studying the bill. I found it ridiculous for the committee to review a bill which is not even complete. Today, a lot was said against the fact that part of these scholarships would be decided on merit and part on need. But what will the proportion be? Is it 10%, 50% or 90% of these scholarships which will go to the best students?

I have several friends who are going to university and who do not have much money and have to work. It is tough to work and go to university at the same time. Of course, working lowers a student's academic performance, but it is the last resort.

Students whose academic performance suffers because they have to work need more money, but our very good government came up with a plan to help only the best students. But the new reality is that our young people need to work to pursue their education.

We do not know what proportion of these scholarships will be based on merit and what proportion will be based on need. The government could have said in committee that, for example, 10% of the scholarships will be awarded to the elite, to the best students. It could have said that it chose to help the best students and to encourage them to go as far as they can so they can become the future leaders of our society. We could at least have debated this, but we cannot. Why? Because we do not know what proportion of these scholarships will be based on merit and what proportion will be based on need.

I have serious questions about our work here today, and that also goes for the members opposite. After all, as democratically elected representatives of the people, we are saying that it is not our responsibility to make societal choices, but the responsibility of a private board of directors. And we do not even know who is going to be on that board. Moreover, we do not know the essence and the intent of this plan. We can certainly change a few commas and make insignificant revisions but, overall, what is this leading to? And there is also the students of Quebec who, in the end, will see a reduction in the assistance they receive.

I met students from Alberta. Their system of loans and scholarships is not as good or perhaps not as generous as Quebec's system. They see that the federal government will intervene and they are very happy. If it wants to proceed in this way, I have no problem with that. But I do not want it to intrude into my values, in Quebec's values. Then people wonder why we want our own country. It seems quite obvious to me.

How would it have bothered the rest of Canada if Parliament had said “It is true that in Quebec you have a consensus and different values. We do not want to disturb you with that. We think this may not be bad in itself. We are giving you the money and you may use it as you wish”? But instead the government is imposing its rules. Then it wonders why there are sovereignists in Ottawa. It seems so simple to me. Then it asks “What does Quebec want?”

This is incredible. When I talk about Quebec's values, I do not talk about a political party that took a stand, but about a consensus among students and university associations and presidents. In short, everyone in Quebec opposes this measure, even the national assembly. The Liberal Party of Quebec said “No, this is not a good thing”. All this for the sake of the federal government's visibility. This disappoints me, because education is the future.

[Millennium Scholarships, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, and the education coalition headed by Rector Bernard Shapiro of McGill University, are unanimous in calling for the federal government to amend its bill on the millennium scholarships.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that his refusal to do so until now reveals his true intentions and proves he never had a mandate to negotiate, as well as how obvious it is that he never intended to honour Quebec's request to opt out with compensation?

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a few things mentioned by the member opposite during his speech.

He spoke about my illusions and said that, as I will get older I should lose my illusions. Is that his answer? Does this mean I should give up now since I will have lost my illusions 20 years from now? I do not think so. I feel concerned about the future.

I feel that some valuable debates must take place now. There are new ways to hold such public debates. I should not give up because of what was done in the past and say “we have no choice”.

This is what I reacted to. I reacted primarily to this attitude that makes some say “let us face it, we have no choice. Market globalization is unavoidable. Fellow citizens, your governments no longer have any power”. I refuse to believe that.

I think that if the public decides to mobilize, if it believes that we can turn globalization into a tool for us all, particularly those of my generation, then we will be able to change things.

Some may accuse me of being idealistic, of believing in a utopia, but I will at least fight. This is what I want to do. I want to fight for the public's interest.

When eight people out of ten support me for the action I took, an action that questioned fundamental values of our society, namely democracy, I think we should ask ourselves some questions.

I do not want to talk specifically about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, but rather about the way this was done, secretly. Ultimately, they were rewriting the world economic constitution, but no one, or almost no one, knew about it, certainly not the people or me, a parliamentarian, a representative of the people. We were informed later about the content of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

I think that, when such a vast society debate has to happen, the people must be informed. And even though the debate is complex and long, as I agree it is, this does not mean we cannot dwell on it now.

Consequently, I do not intend to give up. I think the only thing that is unavoidable—No, in fact nothing is unavoidable. Come to think of it, nothing is unavoidable. Giving up is the only thing that makes things unavoidable.