Stéphan Tremblay

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not raising a point of order. I will use the three minutes I have left to conclude my speech on Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.

Earlier, I said I was very disappointed by what I heard when the hon. member for Frontenac asked members for their views on this legislation. The bill includes provisions that can certainly be associated with patronage. As I explained, the government appoints friends so as to remain in control.

I said I was very disappointed, because it is always the same thing whenever the government introduces legislation. It comes up with a nice bill and with the best possible intentions, but we can always see this will to keep control over everything.

The hon. member for Frontenac made very constructive remarks. I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the official opposition is not here only to oppose measures, but also to provide a different perspective, particularly since the Bloc Quebecois expresses the views shared by a large number of Quebecers.

I am anxious to see which ministers will vote against the bill. As usual, unfortunately, it is a bit like taking the views of Quebec and claiming that they are totally erroneous.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. At first blush, the bill seems pretty innocuous. I looked at it with the hon. member for Frontenac.

However, a closer examination shows what the Liberal Party wants to do. This is rather disheartening. The government comes up with nice bills, but it always wants to able to appoint friends. Because the government wants to remain in office, it does not necessarily appoint competent people. Not to worry. It does not matter whether these appointees are competent or not. What matters for the government is looking after its friends.

Earlier, the hon. member for Frontenac proposed constructive amendments. My colleague sat on the committee. He made constructive suggestions, and I am anxious to see whether the government will have the courage to accept and support these positive changes.

Why do I say this? It is because, while I am still naive, I do notice certain things when I look at the current political reality. We are the official opposition and people often say that the opposition is only there to block government initiatives. This is not at all the Bloc Quebecois' vision, particularly since we are not even here to try to form the government.

Rather, we are here to defend the views of part of the public. I was elected to represent the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Therefore, I come here with certain views and I say to the government: "Listen, your bill may not be so bad, but we propose this changeor that change". But to no avail. I am quite convinced that, when the time comes to vote, the government will turn a deaf ear.

It should come as no surprise that people are no longer interested in politics. It is always the same thing. It is always these little schemes to promote patronage. Of course, this is done quietly. It does not make the headlines. It is always done in an under handed way. This is all very disappointing. Even though we are the opposition-I would rather say the watchdog of democracy-we should be able to work together at least some of the time, so that everyone can make a positive contribution.

This reminds me of the bill we talked about recently, which would have revoked the conviction of Louis Riel. Why did the government vote against the bill? This is ridiculous. When the opposition says black, the government says white.

But that is not what it usually says. Usually, it says: "The opposition is just there to disagree". I am sorry, but we do try to suggest some constructive changes. We try to raise some interesting points. But all we get is a completely negative reaction to any contribution we are prepared to make. I must say I find this very disappointing. I look forward to the time when we have our own country, so we can go our own way.

I will give a few examples from the bill. In clause 9, it says that the head office of the agency shall be in the national capital region or any other location in Canada. That is good. However, according to certain officials, the head office of the agency could be in Ottawa at first and then be moved later on by order in council. Basically, the question that comes to mind is whether the agency could go where it would be politically expedient. If things are not going well in a riding, this would be a good thing to have, so the government hands out a goody. That is what I dislike about the Liberal Party and the government.

In clause 10, it says that the minister responsible for the agency shall appoint an advisory board of not more than 12 members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years. The minister would also appoint one of the members as chairperson of the advisory board instead of letting people qualified in this area who have to work with the food inspection people choose their own representatives.

So the minister is making sure he can control the members of the advisory board and influence their decisions. That is pretty obvious. When you give a job to your friends, they can hardly turn around later on and bite the hand that feeds them.

In subclause 10(5), it says that the minister will fix the fees paid to the members of the advisory board. However, I may point out that in clause 8, it says that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the governor in council. The question is whether this is a mere technicality or whether it is some kind of double standard that could lead to discrimination. This clause is unacceptable for another reason.

Clause 12 provides that the agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Clause 13 provides that the president has the authority to appoint employees to the agency. When the bill was studied in committee, officials confirmed that there would be a code of conduct, of ethics, governing the appointment of agency employees. The thing is, however, that we will not know the content of the code before the bill is passed. It reminds me of the code of ethics of the ministers opposite: they have a fine code of ethics to show that everything they do is proper, except no one knows what the code is. It is completely ridiculous. What is the use of a code of ethics when people cannot even find out what it is about? Here again, it serves to score political points.

The officials told us that the usual rules governing hiring in the public service would be suspended during the transition period. Why do we not know what rules will be used?

We note therefore that patronage-discrimination even-will abound in the future Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has proposed reasonable amendments to prevent the federal government from abusing its power in this matter.

As I said earlier, we simply want to make a constructive contribution. I do not want to foul things up. So long as we are paying taxes to Ottawa, I want to be sure this country is run the best way possible. I am here to work, to improve bills while we are still here. I see these sorts of things, and then people ask me why we want to have our own country.

At some point, people have to try to understand more. As I said earlier, we wonder why people are not more interested in politics. I think it is because of this sort of thing.

Our colleague from Frontenac has contributed constructively. I would therefore invite the government to give it some thought, and perhaps we could work more together.

[Finance, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks by my colleague opposite. She spoke of fine principles, job sharing and such things.

I am prompted to make a few remarks. Some two months ago, the government organized a national conference on young people in the new economy. With the job crisis faced by young people, the government panicked and wondered what could be done. So it invited young people from across Canada-from Vancouver to Newfoundland-in order to siphon off their ideas.

What was the outcome? Each speaker at the conference had a key role in the community. What was the outcome? A sort of consensus. I know, because I led a workshop. What appeared to come out was that employment problems, both social and economic, are regional. I know that in English Canada, when they talk of regions, they mean the Rockies and the Prairies. In Quebec, when we talk of regions, we mean the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean or Abitibi regions, where economic and social realities differ.

My question therefore for my colleague opposite is as follows. Does she not think that decentralization of powers and funds would lead to more activity? My perception of this great Canadian Parliament is that we are trying to study a national problem and find a national solution. Most of the time, however, we know that problems vary from one region to the next, because the realities are different.

So, would it not be better to involve the regions more and decentralize power in order to have solutions to the real regional problems?

[Oral Question Period, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, during Oral Question Period, the hon. member for Saint-Jean stated, and I quote: "This may well be question period, but it is certainly not answer period".

The reaction of several of the ministers and members opposite who were in the House at the time was to reply: "You have been in Ottawa for three years but never realized that until today?"

The purpose of Oral Question Period is to request information from the government and make it account for its actions before the House of Commons. It is an important way of controlling democracy in Canada.

When I hear certain ministers boasting about not participating in this democratic process and making a mockery of it, I feel deceived by and disappointed in a government that respects neither the laws and principles of democracy nor, for that matter, the people of Canada and Quebec.

[An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the few minutes remaining. "Je me souviens". Yes, I remember my language, my culture, and all those who died for me. After all, these are the words that appear on all licence plates in Quebec. Remembering is important.

Lately, someone asked me why we bothered to have a debate in the House on this subject. That person wondered if revoking the conviction of Louis David Riel would change anything in the world. I say that we must acknowledge that something terrible happened: a political execution or an attempt to alter history.

Mr. Riel was, I would say, victim of wrongdoing. I think it is important to know where we have come from to know where we are going. We did not just spring up one day. It is important to understand the origins of our nations, what happened in the past.

What I find particularly fascinating is to see so many of my colleagues opposite who stated, while in opposition, that they were ready to do anything to ensure the revocation of Louis Riel's condemnation. I cannot wait for the results of this vote. What will happen?

It may not be a great moment in the history of our country, but it will be a small moment in our history. For me, it is heart-warming to be able to speak today on such an important issue. I am particularly proud, because two years ago, I had the opportunity to follow an English immersion program in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, just a few kilometres from Batoche where these events occurred.

We are standing up for a hero who fought for democracy as a whole, who gave his life for what he considered a fair and good cause.

Such was the cause and the involvement of a man who put his mark on Canada's very foundation, that is, the Canadian Constitution. This was the cause of a man who was persecuted because he was proud to be a Metis, a Catholic and a French-speaking Canadian, three things that were then very badly perceived in Ottawa.

When we see how the government is treating its minorities today, we tend to believe that things have not really changed. We sometimes wonder. We often blame the young for not being interested in the history of their country and for not knowing anything about this episode of their history, which makes so many Quebecers and Canadians proud.

In order to really understand how important this bill is, we should go back in time to get to know who Louis David Riel was. In so doing we will refresh the memories of those who may have chosen to forget what happened.

Riel was born in 1844 in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba. He was a Métis, which means his parents were of different races.

After his studies at the Petit Séminaire in Montreal, he returned to Manitoba in 1866 and saw the hostility between English Protestant settlers who had recently settled there and wanted to control the area, and the francophone Métis who were Catholics.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time has expired.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question was addressed to the industry minister. I would have liked him to elaborate on the comments he made on Monday when he seemed to be pitting the west against Quebec. Therefore, I redirect my question to the minister regarding what he said on Monday.

[Air Transportation, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the industry minister.

On Monday, in response to a suggestion by the Bloc Quebecois to merge Canadian International and Air Canada, the industry minister stated that it would be an insult for western Canada. However, the fact of Canada having a single international air carrier is not insulting, either for the West or for Quebec. It is clear that the minister's statement was only intended to exacerbate tensions between Quebec and western Canada.

Does the minister realize that the only fair and lasting solution to the problems facing the airline industry in Canada is the one put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, namely to create one single international airline as is the case for instance in France, England and Germany?

[Young Offenders Act, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion M-278. I have just listened to the remarks of my colleague on this side of the House. He has mentioned some incidents that I, and many people in this society, find very sad. They are extremely reprehensible, I agree, and we

can see that there is a malaise in this society. But I do not agree with him on the way to resolve these problems.

I will begin my speech by summing up the member's thinking as follows: "My son, if you play with fire, I will punish you". I do not think this is the route to take. Rather, let us say: "My son, I am going to teach you that you must not play with fire and why you must not do so". What I am getting at is that legislation will have no effect on these young people. It will certainly not steer them away from criminal behaviour.

Recently, I was talking with a street worker in Alma, a city in my riding. The way she works with young people, who are sometimes in difficulty, who have completely lost hope, is not by saying to them: "Listen, if you do that, you will be punished, so you should not do that". I do not know if some members here are cut off from the real world, but young people, I would not say all of them, but many young people, get a kick out of breaking the law. We will not improve matters by bringing in tougher legislation.

I am inclined to think that the member on this side of the House wants to block out the world. Some people shut themselves up in their houses because they are afraid, the world is crazy, and they think they must bring in tougher laws to put these young people back on the straight and narrow. It is my belief that we must try to help them, rather than bring in even harsher legislation. They must be given hope.

When the member says that the public must be protected by laws that make people think twice, laws that will improve things, I have my doubts. It looks more to me like we are putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. This is not the answer. We must find the courage to treat the wound itself.

I know that sounds easy to say, but there are ways. In my view, rather than bring in tougher and tougher legislation, we must approach these young people and try to understand why they are turning to crime. The essence of my speech is more or less this: let us not just put on a bigger band-aid, particularly since young people are not familiar with the law.

Of course, there is talk of dropping the age limit of young offenders to 10 years, from 12. Come on. Even at 14, I cannot give any specific statistics, but how many people of any age are familiar with the laws of this country? When all is said and done, people do not know much about them. So imagine a 14-year old. We will not accomplish anything by throwing more severe laws at them.

It is extremely difficult, I agree, to propose concrete solutions. They are very much at the grassroots level.

I believe that street workers play a very significant role. I do not know if they can be found in every city in the country, but these individuals have the courage to approach young people who might be in trouble, to speak to them, to give them hope. In Quebec, we have help groups such as Tel-Jeunes, which allows young people to talk to someone about their troubles when they are having a rough time.

In the end, we must ask ourselves what is happening to our society and how come it is the way it is, instead of pointing our finger at young people, saying they must be punished. It is not their fault if they are the way they are, I believe there are other problems. To study all the reasons why they commit such serious offenses might lead us to an in-depth sociological debate. We must be careful.

I am certainly not saying I approve of the offenses committed by these young people, far from it, but I seriously doubt a stronger law can convince young people to behave. I seriously doubt it.

What are we talking about in this case? When a young person between 12 and 18 commits a minor crime or the kind of crime committed by most young offenders, he comes under the Young Offenders Act, which is a little different from the laws applying to adults. Younger children are, considered perhaps not careless, but easier to talk into repeating an offence.

What Reform is proposing is to reduce the minimum age from 12 to 10, which is harsher in the end.

I would also point out that Canada's crime rate is dropping. I feel we are trying to alarm the population by saying it does not make sense. Perhaps it is true that it does not make sense, but we have to see the positive side of things, such as the fact that the crime rate is going down in Canada. Is it necessary to make our laws harsher? I doubt it very much.

Local discussions involving stakeholders who see this current loss of hope among our young people will do a great deal more to revive young people's hopes. Young people do not commit crimes for the sake of it. Recently, I recently had a discussion with a criminology professor, who told me that the rise in crime is like a message sent by our young people to the rest of society. They also want their share.

In the animal world, those who are hungry are prepared to attack the stronger ones to get their share of the food. What is happening throughout the world is a bit alarming. Young people are losing hope and these extremes push them to commit criminal acts. Again, I do not approve such acts. However, instead of resorting to punishment, we should hold out our hand to them and lead them toward much more constructive solutions.

[Unemployment Rate, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to listen to our colleagues opposite, one would think that everything is going well in Canada. And yet, we know that last month the youth unemployment rate climbed again, reaching the official critical threshold of 16.8 per cent. Moreover, everybody knows that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Will the minister finally acknowledge that the measures put in place by the government for young people are a totally failure and far from meeting its goals?

[Unemployment Rate, November 8th, 1996]

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

In spite of all his posturing and the government's attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, the unemployment rate in Canada has reached the 10 per cent psychological threshold. I will not call for a minute of silence, but I will remind the House that the OECD had forecasted a 2.1 per cent increase in employment, one of the highest in the world, according to the government. However, since the beginning of the year, in the past 10 months, the average increase in employment has been only 1.1 per cent, barely half what had ben forecasted.

What steps does the government intend to take to create the tens of thousands of jobs necessary to reach its goals according to the OECD's forecast?