Stéphan Tremblay

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very pleased to see that I have support coming not only from the Bloc Quebecois but also from other parties. I hope that my colleagues opposite and from all parties will seize on this issue. Furthermore, if they choose not to do so right now, I think time will prove me right and we will eventually be forced to take a very serious look at this issue.

In response to the question my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked me earlier, essentially, I left with my seat to elicit a broad societal debate. I never said I had all the answers. I plan to focus my efforts on getting the point across to the public and to parliamentarians alike that a debate must be held on this matter, that is, the consequences of globalization on political power.

If we find that globalization does limit the power of parliamentarians at home and abroad, there will be an urgent need for the public to look into the matter and understand what is at stake.

I have said repeatedly this week that any loss of political power means a so-called loss of democracy. This therefore concerns us all, the political parties represented in this House as well as the public at large.

I do not claim to have all the answers, far from it. However, it seems to me that there should be a debate in which parliamentarians and the public would share their views and there is none. This is of greater concern to me.

Of course, we can look at the immediate consequences of globalization, and there are many. But what will be required, and sooner than later, is a comprehensive debate. Then, we will be able to deal with specifics, the consequences, the stakes and, more importantly, possible solutions we can explore to ensure a framework is in place for globalization to benefit the citizens of this and other countries.

That is the challenge facing us. As I said, this is a complex message and the debate is just beginning. It will probably be a 10-year process. That is why it must start as soon as possible.

I hope that, as the public gets further involved in these issues, parliamentarians in this House will pay close attention and make sure that more concrete solutions are found.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week, in an attempt to question the power of parliamentarians, I took my chair out of the House in order to trigger a public debate on the paradox that often emerges from the new economic context of globalization. This paradox is the gap between the rich and the poor that continues to widen despite the economic growth of recent years.

I also wanted to urge people in general to reflect on what is at stake in the new economic reality that is the globalization of markets. This will hopefully help to mobilize the people and force us, parliamentarians of all stripes, to come up with concrete measures to ensure everyone's well-being.

Recently, we saw how people can mobilize and come together on an issue. The Multilateral Investment Agreement was supposed to be ratified today by the 29 member states of the OECD. But after the citizens of several signatory states mobilized against it, the agreement is now being questioned.

This agreement, considered by some to be the constitution of the world economy, is only one aspect of the globalization phenomenon. When people mobilize, agreements can be thrown back into question even though their acceptance had been presented as being imperative and inevitable.

My action was very much inspired by this mobilization campaign, to show people that decisions affecting them directly are being made without meaningful consultation.

I wanted to bring people to take an interest in these decisions. My action obviously satisfied a need because people mobilized in great numbers. Today, I come to the House with the support of hundreds of people and organizations of all kinds from everywhere.

I think people want concrete solutions because they responded favourably to the message I wanted to send through my action, which, all in all, was provocative.

I think people are concerned about the growing gap between rich and poor in our society, particularly in the context of globalization.

I share their feeling. That is why I will consult with those who are interested in this debate so that people can express their concerns and suggest adequate solutions.

These consultations, whether they take the form of focus groups, informal coffee meetings or any other form, will have a dual objective: first, to foster a broad public debate and, second, to give us, as parliamentarians, effective tools to help us define the parameters for this new debate in our society.

I hope that, apart from these consultations, people will mobilize to sign the petition I am circulating, asking that a parliamentary committee be struck to examine our ability, as parliamentarians, to reduce the gap between rich and poor in the new context of market globalization and to suggest concrete solutions.

I would add that I have no doubt as to the people's approval. As I was saying earlier, the support I have received shows that a large percentage of the population believes in the urgency of such a debate. One of my objectives is to bring this petition to the House with 50,000 signatures on it, as a start.

I just mentioned two concrete objectives: involving people in this debate and making sure parliamentarians can find ways to solve the problem. This being said, for parliamentarians to find solutions, they have to know the kind of issues the committee will be called upon to review.

To this end, I suggest the committee should be asked to examine not only the impact of globalization, especially on parliamentarians' decisions, but also how to reconcile economic growth and social development in the context of international competition.

To learn more about international agencies, it might be helpful to examine their democratic legitimacy and understand fully the consequences of their various decisions on the manoeuvering room we, as parliamentarians, are trying to establish at the national level. Is there a need to reform these agencies, as several have suggested, in a way we would approve? We must look into it.

I believe it would be useful to further explore current social policies adopted by parliamentarians in other countries in the context of globalization and examine the inclusion of so-called social clauses in various international and multilateral agreements. I suggest we really have to take a serious look at this for the MAI. How could we establish a democratic and effective counterbalance that could be used to promote, protect and maintain social benefits in nation-states?

Across the world, suggestions and solutions are being put forward to counter the negative consequences of globalization, especially to adapt it to mankind instead of forcing mankind to adapt to it. In his last budget, the finance minister said that basic problems required basic solutions. I say that international problems require international solutions.

I guarantee that this committee would allow us, as members of Parliament, to be forward-thinking at the international level and find concrete solutions to the issue of the lack of power of our respective seats in the context of globalization.

To underscore and highlight the significance of this motion, I move the following amendment, seconded by the member for Richelieu:

That the motion be amended by adding the words “without delay” after the word “act”.

Moreover, to show people we, parliamentarians, are really serious about the issue of the gap between rich and poor, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[Privilege, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make it short. It has to do with globalization and the issues raised in this place today.

Two years ago, when I entered politics, I took an oath to serve my constituents. Today, in a context of market globalization, I think it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. That is why I jump out of my seat as a member of Parliament to start a public debate on globalization—

[Banking, April 20th, 1998]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it relates to question period.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I sponsored the motion this morning. I will disagree slightly with what my colleague just said. He said that he disagreed with the NDP member.

One thing is certain, she spoke from the heart. I believe she made the kind of speech we do not hear enough of here. She lives in an area where there may well be more poverty than elsewhere in Canada, and perhaps she cannot accept it because she sees it so closely. I feel that there is a serious problem in this House, and when she talks about it, she speaks from the heart, with great feeling. I think we should hear more speeches like that in the House.

We seem to be accepting the fact that to be a productive society we also have to have a certain level of poverty, that to be a productive society we have to let our children live in poverty, that we have to let child poverty grow and that there is nothing we can do about it. I remind the House that four years ago, there were 1 million children living in poverty and that today there are 1,5 million of them.

I do not believe there is nothing we can do about it. I was going to say that we buried our heads in sand. like ostriches; that is sometimes the impression I get.

In my opinion, speeches like this one are taken far too lightly. I cannot be unmoved. Yes, we have some differences of opinions on national standards and our views might be slightly different, but I cannot remain seated and claim that what she said did not make sense, because it made a lot of sense, I believe.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to comment. I feel as though I have listened to a budget speech.

However, I am going to speak about all sorts of things. I have the impression that members speak but do not listen. I do not know. There is much talk, but it looks like people are trying to paint the members on this side of the House as the bad guys. They say: “Heavens, Bloc members do not seem to think education is important”.

There are some things we can talk about, but we must be specific. I want to emphasize that the Bloc Quebecois also thinks education is a key sector, one in which we must invest, and I cannot say so often enough. If we want a qualified workforce and people who are not ignorant, and so on, if we want a strong society, we have to start with access to education. That is the first step.

We agree on that. Yes, some good points have been made by the members across the way and we agree fully.

I am fed up. We have heard this all day; we have been accused of not thinking that student indebtedness is important. We have even been accused of not caring about the future of young people. If there is one person concerned about the future of young people, I think I qualify.

We covered a lot of things. What we want to say today is not that students should not receive assistance. It is the form the assistance takes. It is the relevancy of providing assistance and the best way of providing it.

I made the point again today: the taxpayers already pay enough taxes, and probably much more than enough. They hope that the best use possible will be made of every tax dollar. When the federal government cuts $10 billion with one hand and gives back 25% of this amount—they call this an investment, but one might call it spending—with the other hand, I cannot help but wonder where the other 75% of the money went and if it went into fighting the deficit. These are the type of questions I ask myself.

There are other aspects which I feel were only briefly touched on. My hon. colleague did not even address today's motion. Another important aspect is the fact that the scholarship will be handled by a private organization. What is the use of having elected members here if, when there are complaints about the work done by the administrators, we are going to be told “Look, we cannot do anything about it. This is a private organization”. Some democracy. Why bother electing members? Universities are in the process of being privatized.

These are immediate comments, but I will have more to make later. I could go on for an hour. However, at the request of our colleague across the way, I will give the hon. member opposite the opportunity to reply.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have no qualms about it, my own father voted no at the last referendum but he told me the same thing. He said “Stéphan, I will vote no, but if nothing changes, next time I will vote yes”. Everyone said “Things will change. Things will change”. Nothing has changed.

Now, back to the issue. The second thing the minister talked about was the growth rate. Let us talk about it. It is true that we have a good rate of growth at present, and that corporations are making record profits, according to the stock exchange index. There are numerous economic indicators showing that things are going well and it is true. But why are the members opposite creating poverty as never before?

In 1993, there were 1 million children living in poverty in Canada. Now there are 1.5 million. I wonder what mechanisms they want to use to distribute wealth in this country.

When we talk about the efforts of each and every Canadian, we must be cautious. Often, it is the provinces who make the efforts. But there is something else that we do not talk about often enough. I have done some serious research into the financial crisis that countries are going through, like Canada. I believe that countries, and not only Canada, are becoming poorer every day.

Why is it that in the 1950s, the corporate sector paid almost 49% income taxes and that its share has dropped to 7% today?

No wonder citizens have to pay so much tax and income tax. It is because some are not paying their share. Who benefits from economic growth? It is the corporate sector, businesses. I think this warrants serious debate, but it is not the subject of debate today.

As I said earlier, if I came from somewhere else and were listening to the minister's speech, I would think it a fine speech. It is like finding someone hurt on the side of the road and offering a bandaid. A praiseworthy gesture. It takes courage to apply a bandaid, but perhaps it would be an idea to disinfect the wound first.

The Bloc's opposition to the new loans and grants program is not because students should not be helped. We are saying they should be helped efficiently and the most should be made of every dollar invested in education. But what are they doing instead? A system of loans and grants already exists in Quebec. It is one of the most effective in Canada, not according to me but to the president of the Canadian students association. But what are they doing? They are sabotaging that system by cuts in transfer payments to Quebec. And then they cause duplication by setting up another system of loans and grants.

I therefore ask the minister: Where is the co-operation?

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a foreigner—which I may be—and I did know much about the news in Canada and just heard what the minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, had to say, I could only jump to my feet.

In his book, René Lévesque said that it takes 18 months for a Quebec minister to lose touch. I am sorry, but when they talk about co-operation, I cannot agree. There are many federalists, sovereignists and student associations who doubt the effectiveness of the millennium fund.

I remember that at the last referendum—I was not a member of Parliament yet—I heard many people saying “I will vote no, but if nothing changes, Stéphan—”

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the speech made by my colleague from the Reform Party. There were things in there with which I more or less agree, but something made me jump from my seat.

She said that the federal government should perhaps establish national standards but that the private sector should also establish standards in education. What kinds of standards could the private sector set in philosophy, history, literature and certain areas of social studies?

I am under the impression that we no longer live in a country where decisions are made by the elected members, and that we will soon find ourselves with a board of directors instead of a parliament. In the end, we will not be citizens any more, but mere consumers. Those of us who are not fit for business will not be fit for anyone. At some point, I think we will have to come back to more human values so that we have not only consumers but also citizens in this country.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Yes, they die in the fall.

My objective is efficiency. When I talk about visibility, it is not because I do not want to see a maple leaf. That does not bother me. What I want is a good return on the money to be invested in education. The incredible, costly duplications in the program that the government is implementing adversely affect the cost-effectiveness of this investment.