Stéphan Tremblay

[International Assistance, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the World Bank is urging the international community to increase its aid to fight poverty in the world, Canada is constantly reducing the percentage of its GDP that is allocated to international assistance.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it not time to invest in the fight against world poverty, instead of investing in a new arms race?

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Yes, it was sued for $354 million. However, it was settled out of court, and the Americans were paid $15 million.

The question is the following: what becomes of democracy in such cases?

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am back from my riding and I just became aware of the very interesting debate on chapter 11 of NAFTA being held here today.

We are hearing pretty incredible things in this House today. I do not object to the remarks of my colleague, who spoke of the benefits of international trade, stating that $1 invested abroad brings in $2 in return, and of other such spinoffs. I am not against that, and I could hardly be.

What we should be very careful about today is the wording of chapter 11 which, I believe, has a profound effect on democracy.

My fellow citizens are appalled when I explain to them that companies and multinational corporations are able to sue governments, which are elected by the people, and take them to court.

Take for instance the case of Ethyl Corporation, which is probably the most talked about. I want to address my comments to the people in the galleries, because when they hear that for the first time, I am sure they will think it goes against common sense.

We have adopted an environmental rule. I voted in favour of that rule because I agreed with the government on the need for a rule to ban the use of MMT. However, an American corporation sued the Canadian government for potential market loss. This turned against the Canadian government before the NAFTA tribunal. So, I believe that the question to my colleague opposite—

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, given Canada's privileged position, does the government intend to assume some leadership in the setting up of that fund by trying, for instance, to convince its American partner to take part in it?

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the summit of the Americas, the President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, proposed the creation of a fund to alleviate socioeconomic inequalities between the citizens of FTAA countries, somewhat like the fund set up by the European Union to help less fortunate countries.

Does the federal government intend to support this initiative by President Fox and will it help implement it?

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, the government insulted our excellent translators and interpreters. They are able to translate the debates simultaneously, but we were told that it was impossible to translate a 900 page text in more than a week. Come on. The people from Ottawa smiled when they said that.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have not said that I was opposed to free trade. I only said earlier that some people had concerns regarding free trade.

It is obvious that the globalization or continentalization of the economy has the effect of increasing competitiveness, for example. This has consequences attached to it. When competitiveness is pushed to the limit, companies, which are profit driven, are sometimes compelled to reduce wages and to operate from countries where the environment is not respected. This will also create a tax competition between states. To attract investors, companies do not want to pay any taxes or very little. However it is with tax money that health care and education are financed.

I think that this type of pressure exists. I am not saying that this is exactly what will be happening, but the tendency is there. This is why I say that governments and parliamentarians must remain strong to ensure that the rules of the game are set out.

I agree with the member, and probably with Kofi Annan, when he says that trade brings prosperity. I recently travelled to Chile with the Minister for International Cooperation. It is true that Chile is one of the most economically integrated countries in the world. There is a middle class in Chile. I admit it. I do not believe that everything should be either black or white in politics or in the economy.

Right now, there are signs of concern. Some say that investments from the north will bring prosperity to the south, and that is possible, but there are other elements that have to be taken into consideration such as education, for example.

One of the objectives that northern countries must set themselves is to ensure that the countries we deal with provide access to education. It is absolutely essential. To become a developed and democratic society, education is absolutely necessary. We cannot have globalization with countries that are not even able to provide education to their young people, the new generation.

It might not be in the text of the agreement itself, but this absolutely must be taken into consideration.

We must pay attention to what people say in the street. We cannot say that they are anti-globalization, a word I dislike. It is not true that people are against globalization. They are against the way it is happening. We must be careful with the words we use.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today, as there is something rather interesting and symbolic in my doing so.

Three years ago, coming back from the Easter recess, I had been a parliamentarian for two years at the time, I was expressing concern, as I am today, about the widening gap between the rich and the poor. In an attempt to spark a societal debate on the impact of the globalization of the economy and on our political power, I picked up my seat and took it out of the House of Commons to give it back to my constituents. That was three years ago. In a sense, today is the anniversary of my action.

The summit held in Quebec City last weekend was also an important event. I went just about everywhere in the city, among other places to the parliamentarians' forum. I was greatly pleased to hear everyone talk about globalization or continentalization. In short, I think the debate got off to a good start. I do not mean to say that it was my doing, but anyway there is an interesting symbol in this whole issue. I am happy that we are debating it and that it was raised by the Bloc Quebecois, through the member for Joliette. So there are positive aspects.

Other aspects remain disturbing however, as we saw during the weekend. I had the opportunity to participate in the forum of parliamentarians, but I also took part in Saturday's march. I spent the whole week with friends from the Lac-Saint-Jean area who have an apartment very close to the security perimeter, which enabled me to play the role of observer.

I think everyone here will agree that our role, as parliamentarians, is to observe what goes on in the field and to come back here with a good understanding of the events that are taking place in our society.

I must say that my weekend was very enlightening, although sad at times. I already said that I was pleased with certain things I saw in the media. Granted, there was way too much emphasis on vandalism, but there were reports on television, on the radio and in the newspapers on the impacts of globalization and of the huge societal changes that we are going through.

In this regard, there is a certain awareness on the part of the people. Close to 40,000 people marched peacefully in the streets, and I must insist on the word peacefully. Unfortunately, there was another segment of society that had chosen direct action and violence. It is totally inappropriate and it diminishes the quality of the message that those who marched peacefully wanted to send because they were critical of the way globalization and continentalization were being pursued. We must realize that a lot of things happened.

I will continue to try to understand what motivated the vandalism. Unfortunately, a number of violent protesters did not know exactly why they were doing what they were but they were doing it to confront the police. Others were there because they thought it was the only way. Again, I strongly condemn such actions.

Recently, someone said to me “Listen, Stéphan, do we not have the population, the youth that we deserve?” After thinking it over, I said to myself “Maybe. Maybe we should think about things like that”. In short, this is part of the joy of politics. The sociological aspect of such phenomena must be taken into consideration.

There was nevertheless an interesting aspect. Whether they are demonstrators in the street, rioters or people who got inside the perimeter, they all talk about the distribution of wealth. They all talk about the protection of environment, about enhanced democracy. So there seems to be a societal consensus about the goals that we must reach.

There are, however, divergences about the means to reach that end. Some people say that free trade will lead us to our ruin, while others believe it will bring prosperity.

Whatever the results, I believe that the debate is expanding. However, we, as parliamentarians, should examine the issue more thoroughly. Again, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Joliette, for having organized the forum of parliamentarians.

There is a group that has made itself visible in a special way this week. I am referring to parliamentarians, namely members of COPA, who have really indicated what was important in the whole negotiating process. I am not referring here to democracy clauses in each country as they were discussed during the weekend, but to the whole continental process, which is short on openness, consultation, debate and dialogue. I am convinced of that.

Of course, the civil society should be included, but so should the parliamentarians. If they are not, we have a serious problem. We do have a serious problem now, because they are not included at present.

Fortunately, because of this we have had new initiatives like COPA, which has been trying for three years to get parliamentarians of the various provinces and countries together to have a whole range of opinions. We can have a debate in this parliament among ourselves, but, if we are to have a complete picture of the situation, it is essential to have meetings with parliamentarians from other countries of the Americas to sketch out the kind of society we want.

We may be talking about a trade agreement, but as far as I am concerned, we should be talking more generally of the exchange area of the Americas. Exchanges are not restricted to trade, but include knowledge, culture, politics and social issues. We all stand to benefit from increased exchanges.

However, we need rules. This is why I am very uneasy with the term free trade. Does this mean we should have a free market without any rules, environmental rules or social rules? I hope not. I hope this is not what our leaders have been discussing during the weekend.

I support trade, but trade should be fair, with sustainable development, a development that is respectful of people and of the environment. To have this, we need agreements for the Americas. We have to negotiate and discuss this. It is a great proposal. In fact, it is such an ambitious project that it encompasses the richest country in the world and one of the poorest. Some people believe that it will be totally impossible to reach an agreement, but at least there is some dialogue going on.

Call me naive or utopian, but I believe that some day we might have a trade area of the Americas where there will be cohesion, wealth redistribution, greater democracy, an environment agenda and many more great things.

There appears to be agreement that parliamentarians should work together. I am the international co-operation critic for the Bloc Quebecois and I happen to believe that we need interparliamentary co-operation not only in the Americas, but throughout the world, a world of global markets.

Since we have more and more concerns that reach beyond the walls of this parliament, we need discussions and exchanges of ideas that also reach beyond this parliament, hence the emergence of parliamentary associations.

There is however a barrier to interparliamentary co-operation. The language, of course, can be a barrier and it can be quite a challenge. If fact, I have promised some of my parliamentary colleagues to try to learn Spanish during the summer, because it is a beautiful language and it could help me to better understand my Latino colleagues.

Another barrier to interparliamentary co-operation is the distance, although we probably have the technology to overcome that.

The time has come to use technology to promote democracy. The time has come for parliaments in the Americas and throughout the world to get the telecommunications tools they need to hold virtual parliamentary sittings in which some thirty people, including members of the civil society, could take part. We could also have regular sessions to examine some issues in depth, thanks to all the technology we now have. The time has come to take this step, which is why I have become an advocate of virtual parliamentarism.

[Lumber, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of softwood lumber, the Minister for International Trade must continue to hold the line so the industry in Quebec can break free of the negative effects of the agreement that choked it for five years.

The Canadian position must now support manufacturers consistently to enable them to get through the upcoming tense period. Nothing will justify his withdrawing from his position and denying fair treatment for Quebec producers.

The 1996 agreement heavily penalized the Quebec softwood industry. The return to free trade is a return to fair treatment for Quebec, and fair treatment is the only road to the future. This goes too for the jobs of thousands of Quebecers in the resource regions, which need a forestry industry that can get the most out of the American market.

The Bloc Quebecois is the voice of the Quebec softwood manufacturers in the House of Commons and will make sure the Minister for International Trade holds his position on the return to free trade in the case of softwood lumber.

[Virtual Parliament, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on March 7, I sent a letter to all the members of this House on the need to develop a virtual parliament. That idea was later approved by the interparliamentary forum of the Americas. Yesterday, at the Crossing Boundaries National Conference, the Minister of Finance showed a great deal of interest in this project.

My question is for the Minister of Finance and chair of the G-20. Considering that the summit of the Americas and the current globalization process clearly show that parliamentarians must play a more prominent role, how does the minister intend to move from words to deeds regarding an e-parliament project?