Stéphan Tremblay

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1997]

Today we are celebrating the fifth National Child Day.

This day was created in order to commemorate two measures adopted by the United Nations, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention, which Canada ratified in 1991, is aimed at ensuring the survival, protection and development of children.

Recent statistics show that children under the age of 18 constitute 42% of those receiving assistance from food banks, and that 20% of Canada's children are poor.

In Canada, and in Quebec, the number of poor children is growing at the same astounding rate as the number of millionaires. I am therefore inviting the government over there to reflect upon the consequences of the actions it intends to take for future generations.

[Member For Bourassa, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and bitterness that I take the floor today, following yesterday's comment by the member for Bourassa who, in a stement worthy of Howard Stern, said that 49.4% of Quebeckers were “colonized separatists acting like colonials”.

Unfortunately, this is not the first unfortunate slip of the tongue by the member for Bourassa. In 1995, he said he felt like restoring the deportation act and sending back to their country those who spit on the Canadian flag.

I respect respectable people. The Elvis Grattons who talk about the best country in the world and who tell separatists to go live in Cuba if they are not happy may be funny on television, but not in this House, particularly when they say “blessed are Quebeckers for they receive more than their share of UI benefits from the federal government”.

Pierre Falardeau may have created Elvis Gratton, but I sometimes think the Prime Minister recruited him in his party.

[Status Of Young People, November 4th, 1997]

Even if the member for Bourassa thinks this is unimportant, this government's action should be entitled “Vicious circle” or “How the Liberals have our young people going around in circles”.

[Status Of Young People, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, year after year, throne speech after election campaign, we hear the same promise: jobs for the young workers and a better quality of life for the next generation. But what are the facts?

The unemployment rate for young people aged 15 to 24 is close to 17% and, in Quebec, it is close to 20%. The dropout rate for 18 year old students is 15%. The average student loan has increased by 42% between 1989 and 1996 as a direct result of cuts in transfer payments to provinces.

At the same time, the Liberal government insists on duplicating about a dozen programs for young people initiated by the Quebec government, even if it admits services should be rendered by the most appropriate level of government level, which is certainly not the federal level.

[Youth Programs, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The federal government is increasing the number of programs for young people. In so doing, it is overlapping by over $120 million the Government of Quebec's youth programs. Overlap and waste are back with a vengeance.

If the minister is so concerned about the needs of young people, why does he not negotiate the transfer to Quebec of job programs, in line with the clear consensus of Quebeckers, so that young people can benefit from programs tailored to their needs?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

I know, Mr. Speaker, that certain words are not allowed in this Chamber. I find it somewhat absurd.

I have a question for my colleague of the Reform Party. Does he not believe that financing by businesses should be abolished?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank, that will bring my blood pressure down a bit. I find this very interesting. I do not know whether I am turning red, green or whatever party color, but—

Mr. Speaker, all that I want to say is that I think there are people here who suffer from the Pinocchio syndrome and that today's debate is tinged with—

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those listening at home who are perhaps not really familiar with the political system, when a group of individuals has a certain ideology and wishes to promote it politically, they get together and decide to form a political party. This is when the need for money arises.

The next step is to form a group and begin collecting money, prior to going to the polls: buying advertising, getting known, publicizing the party's ideology, and so forth.

This is where things get complicated. Our party has a certain ideology. We do not want to be linked to business. That is why we form small teams. That is how it works in our ridings in Quebec. We form small teams and we collect contributions in amounts of $5, $15, $20 and sometimes $100 at a time. Once in a while, there are large donors. The members across the way talk about $1,000 contributions, but that is another realm entirely.

I will calm down a bit. There is a world of difference between getting ready for an election when you are the Liberal Party of Canada and getting ready for an election when you are the Bloc Quebecois. Both parties have to get out in the ridings, get to know people. We, however, collect money by the sweat of our brow, while the other side has only to organize a few corporate financing activities. They do not worry. The money comes in and things are not complicated.

Politics is easy when you have money, but we believe in our principles. We have our own values and we will continue doing so.

Today's debate is interesting because it gives us the opportunity to hear such nonsense from the other party. For example, this morning, the member for Abitibi said, paper in hand, that when I was elected in the 1995 by-election, I had received funds from an unknown source. The money was simply given by the Bloc Quebecois' national organization.

I will not be treated like a fool when it is so hard to collect money.

It is because of people like them that people are so cynical about politics. It is because of incidents like this one, because of the corruption going on, that they do not want to hear about politics. And you don't have to wonder why.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak 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.

In February of this year, the Minister of Finance introduced in this House the first version of the legislation on the Canada pension plan. Its provisions were improved through the observations and comments made.

The changes put forward by the federal government were approved, as the act provides, by at least two thirds of the provinces representing two thirds of the population of Canada. In all, eight provinces, including Quebec, approved the proposed changes. Only British Columbia and Saskatchewan abstained.

Bill C-2, which the Minister of Finance introduced on September 25, provides for a reform of the Canada pension plan, among other things. There are three main thrusts to the reform. The first is to increase funding of the system, to take it from two to five years, as proposed by the minister.

The second thrust is to maximize the rate of return through the establishment of a Canada pension plan investment board.>

Finally, the bill will change certain benefits, such as disability benefits.

Bill C-2 must follow the parliamentary process and be passed by Parliament in order to come into force. Next the supporting orders in council must be approved by two thirds of the provinces representing two thirds of Canada's population. The Minister of Finance expects all these changes to take effect on January 1, 1998.

In order to assess this reform, let us take a brief look at the history of the Canada pension plan. It was established in 1966, and nine provinces joined, Quebec having its own retirement pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, commonly known as the QPP, which, incidentally, is also under review.

The Canada pension plan pays out approximately $17 billion a year in benefits. This amount includes survivor and disability benefits. The value of the pension fund is equivalent to 2 years benefits, or roughly $39 billion. Of course, this reform will have far-reaching effects on the premiums paid by those contributing to the Canada pension plan.

Employer-employee premiums will increase over the next six years to reach 9.9%, while the maximum contribution will rise from $975 to $1,635. Nevertheless, the actuarial report on which the government based its reform shows that, at this rate, the fund may run dry by the year 2015 and contribution levels should be 14% instead of the current 5.85%. That is a 240% increase. You will understand that, between a 240% increase and the proposed 73% increase, I definitely prefer the latter.

While being strongly in favour of this legislation, I must say that the reform affects Canadians more than Quebeckers, since very few Quebeckers get CPP. As of last August, there were between 12,000 and 13,000 Quebeckers in this situation. These beneficiaries are Quebec residents who worked all their lives in another province and who only contributed to the CPP, such as a person living in Hull but who worked in Ontario and paid contributions in that province; members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP who reside in Quebec but paid contributions to the Canada pension plan, to the extent that they only contributed to that plan; and those people who receive CPP benefits but have settled in Quebec.

As the critic on youth issues, I took a close look at the first two points I mentioned earlier, namely the funding of the plan and its optimal rate of return. The latter will be easier to achieve through the Canada pension plan investment board. This board is essentially similar to Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et placement, except that it will not have any economic mandate.

Its primary responsibility will be to achieve the best possible rate of return, so that today's young people stand a better chance of enjoying a retirement pension.

Moreover, having a reserve equivalent to five years of benefits instead of just two will provide a major fund with more money than is currently the case, thus ensuring that Canadians, and particularly people of my generation, will receive retirement benefits when the time comes.

Although our party is in favour of this reform, I would like to mention a few observations and questions that will have to be addressed at the committee stage.

To begin with, we all agree that premiums will increase under this plan. These increases will be absorbed in part by my generation. Will young people also see a decrease in their pension benefits? Given comparable premiums in constant dollars, will the pensions young people receive on retiring be comparable to those of people now receiving benefits under the plan? I would like these questions to be addressed, for there is a cloud hanging over intergenerational equity.

As party critic, and as a young person myself, I find it interesting that the focus is on the future to ensure that future generations will have the same rights as today's generation.

To give a better idea of where I am coming from, I would like to describe briefly the situation facing this country's youth. Each year the rate of unemployment is somewhere between 16 and 17% and the activity rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 is dropping. All the Liberal promises to create jobs for young people are slow to materialize, as is very clear from the rate of unemployment and the decreasing activity rate among young people since this government came to power. The Bloc Quebecois is strongly in favour of responsibility for youth employment programs being returned to Quebec and will do everything in its power to bring this about.

I have said this over and over again, and I will keep saying it for the rest of this Parliament.

Because of the Conservatives' successive restrictions on unemployment insurance and the Liberals' employment insurance reform, fewer young people are able to take advantage of this program. This is yet another reform that served present generations in the past, but that will be inaccessible to my generation in the future.

Employment insurance, as it is now known, is a measure that is almost completely inaccessible. There are, of course, certain interesting adjustments, but for seasonal workers or young people graduating from university, this reform is completely inaccessible.

In addition, the principle followed by the Liberals with regard to premiums is simple: hold the line on premiums but cut back on accessibility. Increases in tuition fees are the result of cuts to provincial transfer payments for post-secondary education that were imposed by this government. Finally, poverty is an ever-increasing problem.

I am greatly concerned about the future, about environmental questions, about a lot of issues, but one in particular which this House must discuss, namely the widening gap between the rich and poor.

For some years now, since 1980, in fact since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have seen that capitalism is growing by leaps and bounds. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, with the government across the way and its reforms, particularly the employment insurance reform, which is impoverishing the poor still further. I think this is cause for concern.

I recently saw statistics indicating that the number of millionaires in the world has doubled. This is cause for concern. This is probably one of the consequences of the notion of the global village, the world market, which makes it easier for the rich to get richer, and more easily.

Markets are opening up increasingly toward Asia. The world is becoming one huge global market. Will this accentuate the difference between the rich and the poor? I am sounding an alarm, and I believe that considerable thought must be given to this. I think we shall be able to find a way out, but at what price? Tenacity and perseverance will be needed.

What I wanted to show with my speech is that the Bloc Quebecois is not here to oppose anything that moves, everything the government does. On the contrary, we are delighted with the pension reform. As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I shall make it my duty, along with my colleagues, to ensure that all the reforms will apply equally to the coming generations and that everyone will be able to benefit from these services.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is sort of a tradition for one's maiden speech to concentrate a bit more on local affairs. That was the reason I thought it important to mention a few facts. But, as you wish, I will move right along. I had some nice things to say, but out of respect for the Chair, and for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada, I will move on to my comments on Bill C-4. I do so with respect, because I hold this institution in respect. In Quebec, we have respect for democracy. I did want to mention the third referendum, which is not far off. I hope that this institution will respect Quebeckers' upcoming decision.

Finally, in connection with Bill C-4, I wanted to mention an agricultural initiative in my riding, the Coopérative Grains D'OR. The co-operative's 225 shareholders have set up a grain centre, which means they can process and package their own crops. I am telling you this because it brings me to today's debate on the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

So, as I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the bill. It is a worthwhile piece of legislation which will ensure greater representation for western producers, and we are pleased to see a measure which will benefit other Canadian provinces. We are not here to undermine what is being done elsewhere, quite the contrary, but we are aware that, while the bill affects Quebec to some extent, it does so in an indirect way.

This measure is a carbon copy of Bill C-72, which was introduced during the last session of the 35th Parliament. Fear not: it is not out of generosity that the Liberal government came up with this legislation but, rather, because of pressure exerted by western producers, who have been demanding that changes be made to the methods used by the Canadian Wheat Board. In recent years, many transborder farmers from western Canada have illegally exported wheat to the United States. This undoubtedly explains, to some extent, the government's initiative.

The changes to be made to the Canadian Wheat Board through this bill take into account, among other things, the restructuring of this body, thanks, in part, to the partial replacement of Liberal patronage, as outlined in clause 3. I say “partial replacement of Liberal patronage” because this government will still appoint five directors out of the 15 mentioned in the bill.

However, the reason we are supporting this bill is that a majority of directors, 10 of them, will be elected by the farmers who use the CWB's services. This is a positive change, in light of the current situation.

It should be noted that the Bloc Quebecois played a major role in the makeup of the board. Indeed, without the efforts made and the pressure exerted by the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, the Liberals would surely have reduced the number of producers' representatives.

As regards the activities involved, Bill C-4 provides greater flexibility in purchasing grain and paying farmers, the whole process being covered in part by a reserve fund set up by the CWB.

As our agriculture and agri-food critic said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois supports this government measure. Unlike those who accuse us of navel gazing and despite the fact that this subject might appear to be of no interest to us because of the difference in our farming sectors, we are interested in the measures proposed in the bill, which is if considerable significance for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and various parts of British Columbia. Western grain farmers are entitled to have their say, and we will try to add our support in this matter.

Still on the subject of the social restructuring in this bill, I would point out certain facts that will shed a little light on what appears to be a government sacrifice, but which in fact a sham. I say sham because the government will retain fairly significant control over the Canadian Wheat Board.

In short, for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill's being sent to committee, and we do not intend to make things difficult for the government.