Stéphan Tremblay

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make. It really makes me sad to see two political parties blame each other, considering the current impact of poverty. I feel a little uncomfortable to have to address, here in this House, an issue as serious as poverty.

We hear about the negative impact of the deficit and the debt. Let me tell the House about the negative impact of poverty. We should ask ourselves some tough questions, considering that one Canadian child in five goes to school on an empty stomach. These children cannot do well in school, because they are hungry, and yet this in one of the richest countries in the world. There is a delayed impact, since these young people are not able to go to school and get a solid education. I wonder what kind of society we will have 20 years from now.

My time is up, but I will get back to this issue.

[Youth Unemployment, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Statistics Canada revealed that a further 22,000 jobs had been lost to young people.

In the past year, since the minister announced the youth employment strategy with great fanfare, jobs for young people have decreased and not increased.

When will the minister finally admit that his youth employment strategy is a miserable failure and that the only serious way to help young people would be to transfer these programs to Quebec?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks a lot about lowering taxes. I have a short question and a comment for him.

If taxes are lowered by 1%, for example, it does not make a huge difference for a low income earner. However, the same 1% makes a noticeable difference for someone earning $100,000. The end result of this is that the tax decrease will provide greater buying power to the rich. It will benefit the rich. This is my first point and I am curious to hear what the member has to say about it. I am not playing politics here.

Now, here is my question. The hon. member often says that governments spend too much. Does he not think we should try to get money from the wealthy?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to my colleague opposite, he sounds just like the members beside us. We hear the most interesting things.

They talk about the fight to bring down the deficit. I will tell you how to go about ruining the social fabric. When all is said and done, yes, I agree that the deficit must be eliminated. Deficits are a drain on future generations. But it is all in how you go about it.

I have a question for my colleague across the way: How is it that our economy is doing so well right now? The indicators show that we are in a period of full economic growth. Businesses have been making record profits for a few years now. How is it that, with business doing so well, poverty is on the rise?

They wanted to reduce the deficit. The federal government has taken the easy way out and cut transfer payments. The provinces are then obliged to make cuts in the social fabric: health, education. Right now, there is unprecedented poverty. The worst is that it is a trend, and that is what worries me. While the economic indicators certainly look very good, it is a bit like Canada Dry: it looks like champagne, but it does not taste like it at all.

What worries me is that, instead of making cuts as the government has done or lowering taxes as others have done, we should be debating the issue, as the Bloc Quebecois suggested at one point. If we are in a period of economic growth, that means there is money, there is wealth being created.

If wealth is being generated, why are we not able to get at it? I am alluding to tax increases, to ways of getting the money where it is, namely in the pockets of the wealthiest.

So, why is it that major corporations can take advantage of tax avoidance schemes, tax havens and all these sorts of things? Governments turn a deaf ear, and I feel that, all too often, they are puppets of the corporate world and of the wealthy. The government does not care about young students getting into debt, or about the poor. What is more worrisome are the new types of poverty currently found in our society. All this leaves a very bitter taste; the champagne has turned to vinegar.

I put the question to the hon. member opposite: How does he explain the fact that there is an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor?

[Child Poverty, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is cause for concern because this morning, the Canadian Council on Social Development revealed that the number of children living in poverty is constantly increasing, even if unemployment is down slightly.

Contrary to all the negative stereotypes we are familiar with, poverty does not strike only people who are on welfare or who are jobless, but also workers with a low income.

Of even greater concern is the report's conclusion that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. Canada's record in this area is dismal because it is sixth among the ten most industrialized nations, considering that the income of the wealthiest 20% of the population is seven times greater than the income of the poorest 20%.

The federal government wants us to believe that the $850 million in support for poor children will compensate the billions of dollars that it took from their parents by cutting social transfers and employment insurance.

[Millenium Fund, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, not even Mr. Trudeau would have wanted to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I wonder what throne speeches are for, because in 1996 the government said it would offer opting out provisions to the provinces if it interfered in their jurisdiction.

Is the minister refusing to tell us right now if, yes or no, the federal government will give to the Government of Quebec its fair share of the millennium fund, since the Government of Quebec, on its part, has already made known its intention to use this right?

[Millenium Fund, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, here is further evience of the great reform brought about by renewed federalism. This morning, we learned that the government was about to increase the millennium fund from one to three billion dollars. Three billion dollars in new duplication, another flagrant violation of Quebec's jurisdiction and another example of inefficiency.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make the commitment that he will give Quebec its fair share of the three billion dollars, as the federal government has always done over the past 30 years with the student loans program?

[Employment Insurance Fund, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the fund is there to protect workers, should they become unemployed.

When will the minister finally admit that it is not his money and that he is using the surplus to reduce the government's deficit?

[Employment Insurance Fund, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Finance said that the surplus in the employment insurance fund has a direct impact on the health and stability of public finances.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development finally admit, like his colleague from Finance, that the surplus is a form of deficit insurance for the government and of poverty insurance for the unemployed?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few remarks on this bill, an act to establish the Canada pension plan investment board and to amend the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Bill C-2, which the finance minister introduced on September 25, is a reform of the Canada pension plan, among other things. This reform has three main components. The first one deals with the level of capitalization of the plan which will increase from two to five years of benefits, as suggested by the minister. The second one provides for the optimization of the plan's performance through the establishment of an investment board. And the third one is a series of changes to certain benefits, such as the disability benefits.

Implementation of these measures depends on Bill C-2 going through the parliamentary process. In order to assess this reform, I would like to give the House if I may a brief background of the CPP. The plan goes back to 1966, when nine provinces opted in, while Quebec created its own plan, the Quebec pension plan, which is also being revised.

The Canada pension plan pays benefits totalling about $17 billion a year. This includes survivor and disability benefits. Right now, the plan has enough money in reserve to pay two years worth of benefits, which amounts to some $39 billion. Of course, this reform will have a significant impact on Canada pension plan premiums.

I will now talk about the various amendments, starting with Motion No. 12 put forward by the Conservatives, which says that, for the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, any increases in the contribution rate provided for in the bill shall not come into effect unless they are offset by an equivalent decrease in employment insurance contributions.

The motion also says that the contribution rate for self-employed persons shall not exceed 10.25% except if the chief actuary is of the opinion that a higher contribution rate is warranted.

We support the idea of a decrease in employment insurance contributions to offset the increase in CPP premiums. However, the cumulative decrease proposed by the Conservatives is equivalent to a 80 cent decrease in the EI contribution rate. Such a decrease is not compatible with the Bloc's position, which calls for an enhancement of the program in addition to a significant decrease in the contribution rate, because we think that the reform went to far.

Now my mouth is watering in anticipation of what I am about to say on the other amendment, this one being proposed by the Reform Party. We thought we had seen everything, but this tops it all.

The amendment proposed by the Reform Party calls for repeal of the section of the legislation allowing retroactivity of the increase in contributions for 1997. At this time, the agreed CPP contribution level is 5.85% and the act will allow this to be retroactively raised to 6% for 1997. The Reform Party members are against this retroactivity.

I feel that, in politics, at some point one has to see beyond the end of one's nose. I was pleased to be able to speak at the first reading of this bill. Opposition parties are always described as being there to get in the face of the government. I do not believe this is the case. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of such a bill, except that I note that its vision is rather a long term one. If I want to receive benefits some day, at some point, we have to start realizing that there must be more money in the fund.

Yes, I am in agreement with this reform. It imposes a surcharge on taxpayers, in that people will have to contribute more. It is like another tax. I know that the people will not be delighted at that, but we have to look several years down the road. We have to be able to look at our children and tell ourselves that it would be worthwhile for them to have the same advantages we have had all our lives.

What Reform is telling us is that this is a tax increase. This makes no sense; they are playing politics with blinders on. I find this very frustrating. We in this House see our share of short-sighted policies. I need only think of the position taken by the Minister of the Environment, who, very quietly, will take a position much like that of the United States. It is true they say greenhouse gases are serious business, but what about future generations? I am not just thinking about myself. Policies being formulated now will have an effect in 20 or 30 years when I will be 40 or 50. I think they should give thought to future generations when they establish policies. Policies on sustainable development as they are called.

If I were the son of a Reformer or rather a Reform member, I would be wondering how I could look my children in the eye and say “Sorry, my education did not cost me a lot. When I finished university, I got a job and it did not take long. When I retired, I had a pension plan and one heck of a retirement. Unfortunately, you my son, will have to pay for your university education”. What is more, this morning in committee, a Reform member said he was opposed to loans and bursaries. I am not going to get into this, but as I said, the Reform approach is sort of “You are going to pay dearly for your university education. When you get out, you will not have a job, and that is no problem. When you retire there will be no pension, because the coffers will be empty”.

I do not understand. I am not into partisan politics. I do not want to divide the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and the Liberal Party. I am talking much more of a generational thing. I feel sorry for the poor people my age who vote for the Reform Party in Alberta and British Columbia. Perhaps it is time they looked at their policies.

Finally, this shift to the right is of great concern to me because such policies widen the gap between rich and poor. It is like saying to young people: “Our generation was rich, but we don't care if you have to live on a shoestring”. This makes me very uncomfortable. When I talk about the gap between rich and poor, I am talking not only about long term policies, but also about things that are happening right now. My colleague from the NDP mentioned the banks. One of my Bloc colleagues will soon propose a reform package to encourage banks to become more socially involved in our communities.

I believe it is time for policies that are more concerned with social issues. This shift to the right will lead us nowhere. It only redistributes the money so the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The poor must resort to violence to be heard, leading to total anarchy. I do not want that kind of society. I want a fair system.

Your generation enjoyed a rather fair and equitable system. My generation and that of my children deserve a system that is just as fair.

I intend to keep Reform members on their toes. As long as they keep moving such phoney amendments—I have no qualms about calling them phoney—I will rise in this House to take them to task.