Stéphan Tremblay

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am always very interested in talking about the employment insurance bill.

I have to say that I opposed the bill. I opposed it and I still oppose it, but a little less today because now I have hope.

I will first explain why the Bloc Quebecois and I oppose this bill as currently defined. First off, clause 9 of the bill gives the government the power to set the premium rates for 2002 and 2003, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

Under the existing act the premium rates are set by the commission, with the approval of the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

The nuance is significant since with the ousting of the commission for the rate setting process the rates could be adjusted according to the needs of the government and its deficit, rather than according to the needs of the unemployed and the amount of contributions received, as the chief actuary recommends.

If passed, clause 9 would legalize theft and the government's having full possession of the fund.

This morning people talked about a real employment insurance fund. However, with clause 9, we are making it legal for the government to draw from the fund surplus as it wishes. I therefore appeal to this government to have this clause repealed. If it were, I would vote in favour. The Bloc Quebecois would vote for the bill. Why?

If members read over my last speech concerning Bill C-2, they will find that I was very critical of that bill, which had nothing to do with the reality of the area I represent where seasonal work is a fact of life.

Why am I less critical today? It is because I have hope. Nevertheless, I remain concerned. I have hope, given the fact that a motion was adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which was put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and which said:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of Commons other recommendations related to the Employment Insurance Act and that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.

Hearings were held and people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean gave testimony before the committee. We were very happy about that. Several witnesses said that the actual reform was nonsense since it does not answer the needs of our fellow citizens.

I am still concerned today, but I see a glimmer of hope. What will be the content of the report tabled on June 1? I do not know. However my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques has all my confidence, because he is a man full of compassion and understanding toward Quebec workers. There are many things I would like to see in this report, and I hope it can generate major changes in the present plan.

The Employment Insurance Act as it stands now has a negative impact on my region and that of the hon. member for Charlevoix, because we both experienced the same kind of situation on July 1. This is not a problem affecting all our colleagues.

The act provides for a review of EI zones every five years. The number of hours and the number of weeks of benefits vary between an area with high unemployment and an area with a strong economy.

When the zoning is sensibly done it reflects the reality of regions. A new zone was established on July 1 last year without any real consultation. There were token consultations. I wrote to the minister to tell her I disagreed with this new EI zone. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean her officials told her to keep the status quo. In spite of it all, the chief actuary established the new zone. Actually I do not know whether the actuary or the minister was involved, but that is not relevant. Still, a major change was made in that instead of having to work 420 hours to qualify workers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region will now need 525 hours to get a maximum of 22 weeks of benefits, instead of 31.

This may be of little significance to us, in the comfort of our seats. This morning, I listened to the passionate speech made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on the realities experienced by the families and workers who will not qualify, or who will qualify but will only receive benefits until February. How will these people survive? From February to May when the tourist season starts and seasonal economic activities resume, these people will have to rely on income security, on welfare.

Do hon. members think this is what these people want? Absolutely not, particularly since they often have a house or a car, which is perfectly normal and something I wish on everyone. Because of that they cannot qualify for provincial income security. These people then find themselves without any income, and governments wonder why people turn to the underground economy. There comes a point where people have to get into survival mode. When the government comes up with measures like this one, with measures that do not reflect the workers' reality, some turn to the underground economy because they need to put bread and butter on the table.

That is why the minister, faced with an outcry from workers in our regions before the election was called, agreed to change the rules to propose transitional measures so that workers would have the time, the minister put it, to get used to the new EI rules which restrict eligibility and decrease the number of benefit weeks.

People do not get used to poverty. Even if we wanted to extend the tourism season, and we are working on it, the weather must be factored in. When the ground is frozen it is frozen, with the result that there are certain activities which are impossible during the winter season. Seasonal work is a reality in this country and must be taken into consideration.

I mentioned earlier that I hoped the committee would submit a report and that it would lead to amendments so that the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore regions would see a return to measures reflecting the economic reality of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. The result would be that seasonal workers could make both ends meet and that they would not find themselves facing poverty. This does not mean that they do not want to work. Far from it.

Once again, I listened to the speech by the member for Acadie—Bathurst who had heard in the House that some people are lazy and want to live off income security. There may be a percentage who do, but it is not true of most workers. Far from it. What people want are working conditions, work and decent pay, to which everyone is entitled.

If the existing rules are not amended the impact on the economy of my region and on businesses will be disastrous.

I mentioned workers who will face a gap in benefits in the spring. Businesses will be affected as well.

Unfortunately that is all the time I have.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant question.

I spoke earlier about young people's involvement in politics. When I refer to young people, I include those at university who are more and more overwhelmed by their studies and work. I think there is a lack of involvement.

At my college in Alma, I try to hold mini-debates. I meet with students. I tell them that what is going on concerns us all and that there will be consequences of this for the rest of their lives, so it is important to deal with it now.

It is the foundation of my political commitment. When I was first elected, I was 22 years old. I told myself that the decisions taken today would have consequences throughout our lives. That is why it is important to have a balance between youth and experience in the House. I think that unfortunately, whether it is through lack of time or because they have too many responsibilities, young people do not participate enough in the debate. That is what I think: they are not sufficiently involved.

If you tell me that they participate as much as they did 20 years ago, it is not enough. We are facing challenges on a scale never seen before. We need creativity and imagination in order to face up to these challenges; we need everyone.

At one university I was told “Look, Stéphan, university is no place for politics”. If university is no place for politics, where can we be political other than in the House of Commons?

I think there is a serious problem, perhaps because the media do a poor job of covering politics, or because they only cover the bickering that goes on during question period; whatever the reason, there is a malaise in the democratic process. I feel that this issue is highly pertinent.

I would also like to tell you what is happening in Quebec. Surveys conducted during the Quebec youth summit revealed that globalization issues are of the highest priority for young people 19 to 24 years of age. This is something new. The day before yesterday I celebrated my fifth anniversary in politics, and I know that when I started there was not this degree of interest. Interest in such issues has therefore grown, and I think this is a very good thing.

In my opinion, our role as parliamentarians is to see the students and listen to their points of view. When I refer to chapter 11 of NAFTA, who knows what I am talking about? I can tell the public that, under chapter 11 of NAFTA and perhaps even under the free trade agreement of the Americas, a corporation unhappy with the legislation passed by a government will be able to take legal action against that government. This has already happened and is still happening. I believe one of the most recent cases involved a municipality in Mexico taken to court because it was establishing environmental rules. When I see that companies can now take legal action against countries, I have to ask myself some serious questions. It is my role to meet with students and the general public and to explain to them what is going on.

If we had debates, we could talk about these issues. We are having a debate now, but with all due respect to my colleagues who are here tonight it is really only a semblance of a debate. In any event, there is an enormous amount of work to do.

Let us hope that young people show an interest in these issues. Moreover, there was a reason why I carried my chair out of the House. I was trying to make a point in a way people would remember. I was trying to tell young people that here was an issue that threatened democracy.

If in fact parliamentarians have fewer powers in an era of globalization, then should we address this problem? All of democracy is threatened in the process. I am not saying that democracy has disappeared. We need only travel to certain Latin American nations where democracy is seriously undermined to see that our problems are quite different. However, does this mean that I should disregard what is happening here at home and pretend that everything is fine? No.

I wonder about the kind of society I will be living in twenty years from now. When I look at what is going on, I am concerned and I have a duty to convey my concerns to the public.

That is why I felt it was important to launch a debate involving the whole society. Three years later, I find myself again at 1.30 in the morning demanding greater transparency and democracy.

We still have quite a way to go. That is why I will continue to make the rounds of CEGEPs and universities and to debate these issues. I encourage young people to follow the debate, to become politicized and to criticize the system in a constructive way.

Next April 20, there will be protesters in the streets. I have talked to people my own age who have told me “Listen, Stéphan, if these kinds of things are going to happen, then I prefer to be run over”. This is what informed young people have been telling me. I have talked with them and they are well informed. They are prepared to get arrested.

The fact remains that there is a problem. Either they are wrong, or there is a communications problem, with the public not understanding the government's decisions. Unquestionably, there is a problem.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a time difference. I would like to send greetings to the people of British Columbia and the Yukon who may be getting ready for bed. However, the residents of the maritimes probably went to bed a long time ago.

As for Quebec's role, the Prime Minister is of course a Quebecer, as is the Minister for International Trade. However, their perspective on things is totally Canadian, and while I am not saying that this is a bad thing, it seems to me that when you pay a visit to someone, it is normal that that they be allowed to greet their guests.

In my opinion, the premier of Quebec and leader of all Quebecers—and I am not indulging in partisan politics, in fact I am making a real effort not to during this debate—could have been invited to address some welcoming remarks to the delegates. At the very least, he should have been extended this courtesy.

Even though we are part of a federation—one that is becoming increasingly centralized perhaps—under the constitution, Quebec has jurisdiction over such areas as health and education. Therefore, if issues that concern Quebec arise, then I feel it should, at the very least, be more involved in the discussions.

We could debate this issue at some length, but I am convinced that where Quebec's role is concerned, there has been negligence.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that at this hour of the morning we have reached a consensus about something I heard earlier from my colleagues. We seem to agree that this is indeed an important debate. This day is a happy one, because we have an opportunity to debate the issue in the House.

I must admit to the members that my happiness decreases sharply when I see what time it is: it is 1.25 a.m. It does not bother me to be debating at 1.25 a.m. The public seems to be saying to us that it is important. Yet we are having it in the evening. We are having it at night, and the impression is that we are trying to get rid of it, that it will be swept under the carpet and that what is said will not be given much weight, or something like that.

It is very sad to see the context in which this debate is taking place. It does not bother me one bit to get up in the middle of the night in order to come to debate something as important as this. I have wanted us to debate issues such as this one—economic integration—for a long time. I am not against it, far from it. However, I am suggesting that we do our job and really debate the issue.

What are we talking about today? We are talking about the summit of the Americas, the discussions on the free trade area of the Americas which will take place on April 20. For me, this is a very, very important date. In addition to being the date of the summit, it is the anniversary of a date on which I once took an enormous risk by trying to launch a public discussion of the potential impact of globalization and economic integration on society and democracy. Indeed, I took this chair that belongs to my fellow citizens of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, I brought it to them and I told them, “Listen, after two years in politics, I wonder about the power of this chair to reduce the disparity between rich and poor in the context of globalization”.

Initially, we had difficulty finding documentation on globalization. I do not claim to be the one who sparked the debate, but I think I became involved in a popular movement from which emerged a degree of concern that is still present and that will continue to be present on April 20 and 21. Unfortunately or fortunately, many people will descend on the streets of Quebec City.

I say unfortunately because of the potential for violence. I deplore any kind of violence that may erupt in connection with the demonstrations and other public gatherings that will be held. Violence is completely unacceptable and a threat to democracy. I will be joining the people who plan to take to the streets to voice their concerns or protest the lack of debate. I agree with them that there is a problem.

When I carried out my chair, I was hoping to generate some kind of debate. Moreover, 50,000 people signed a petition calling on members of parliament to examine these issues. It is the least we could have done, in my view. However, given the absence of debate and the presence of lack of communication, this is what happens.

Even if the proposed FTAA was a positive initiative, the average person in the street would not know if indeed it would benefit him or her because there has not been any kind of debate. Some discussions may have taken place, but there has been no societal debate. Thus it is extremely relevant that we debate this matter here this evening. As I said, I find it very regrettable that this debate must unfold in the wee hours of the morning, when the public and parliamentarians may not necessarily be listening.

I am not saying that I oppose everything that is happening. That is not at all the case. However, as I said, if we had had an opportunity to set eyes on the FTAA texts during the course of our discussions, and I am certain many people would like to get their hands on these documents, then people would have been able to give an informed opinion. This was not to be. All we have to go on are snippets of information.

During a recent visit to Chile, I had an opportunity to meet with the minister of international co-operation who informed me that he was doing a great deal of work parallel to this accord to ensure that the FTAA agreement would have positive spin-offs for the other countries of the Americas. So much the better.

As that issue is not a subject of debate, and we are not really sure what is being done around us, it is hard for me to go out and meet with the people of my riding and tell them not to worry, that everything is all right, that I think it is a good agreement. I do not know if I can go to the businesses in my riding and tell them it will be good for them. I do not know. This is what I criticize and this is why I will march peacefully in the street on April 21.

Next Sunday, there will be a teach-in on the free trade agreement of the Americas here in parliament. A people's committee is coming here, into parliament, to debate these issues. These people are so worried that they are prepared to practise civil disobedience. I do not want to say that I support them, but a member of the NDP and I opened parliament up because I believe these people deserve to be heard.

They have things to say and they are prepared to be run over in order to say what they have to say. It must be serious. There are all kinds of things we could discuss in this free trade agreement, in particular something like chapter 11. If I could see the texts I could perhaps say whether I think mistakes were made in the framework of the NAFTA text that should perhaps not be made again in the text of the FTAA, but I do not know. Therefore how can I judge? When in doubt, what is one to do? Go down and protest in the streets because we feel the process is undemocratic.

However, there are things that can be done. We, as members of parliament in this House, can act. Several people are sleeping, as it is more normal not to be in the House at this hour.

Still, as a parliamentarian, I think there are some interesting things being done. Some of the world's parliamentarians are saying: “Our role, as the people's representatives, is to do our job. We do not agree with what is happening. We have to express our views.”

Moreover, that is what led to the establishment of the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas, COPA, an inter-parliamentary association founded in Quebec City recently—one and a half years ago—when parliamentarians from throughout the Americas came together to discuss our problems, our issues and our shared concerns. It is a very good thing.

I feel that parliamentarism should go beyond borders and debate these questions more fully. It is urgent. Naturally, Canada answered the call of the COPA because, through it, it has a place among the countries that make up federations, and parliamentarians from the provinces are included. Recently, we had the inaugural meeting of the interparliamentary forum of the Americas here in Ottawa, which was attended by parliamentarians from every country. The provinces were excluded, but we will not dwell on that, that is not what matters.

Parliamentarians from throughout the Americas met in this House, and it was very rewarding to have the opportunity to dialogue with a parliamentarian from Honduras, with one from Chile, from Mexico, and from the United States. The participation of the United States was perhaps somewhat lacking, but after all we should focus on the end goal, not the current results. In any case, if there is one thing, I think, that must be done in the House, given the reality of continentalization and globalization, it is to leave this parliament to speak with fellow parliamentarians from the Americas and around the world.

Members of parliament will tell me, “Yes, but it is not that easy to travel, to meet, to get parliamentarians to move”. I came back from Chile last week. Travelling in the southern hemisphere requires a lot of energy.

What I proposed at the interparliamentary forum of the Americas pertained to technology, which is advancing at such a hellish pace. It is for this reason that I suggested that the technical secretariat of FIPA support the development of a virtual telecommunications mechanism that will allow parliamentarians to meet more frequently, by means of virtual meetings. I am being serious.

When I say frequently; perhaps once a week, like a national parliamentary committee of this parliament, which meets once a week in order to pursue debates, study issues and listen to the people. I think that we will now have to do this kind of work as parliamentarians.

Since the earth is a sphere and it is difficult to meet with a parliamentarian or groups on the other side of the world, I recommend that we adopt these instruments which would allow us, for example—I know that it is perhaps futuristic, but I have no trouble looking ahead to the future—to sit in a committee room here in parliament in Ottawa, where I would have the impression, not only the impression, it would be a reality, that my colleagues, parliamentarians from across the country, the continent and even the world, were present and that I could debate. We parliamentarians could work together and present a common front in the case of such matters as the Tobin tax.

I am a parliamentarian who favours a tax such as the Tobin tax. Of course, such a measure requires concerted action by all countries. Groups of parliamentarians could push for action simultaneously on the same issues, the environment, for example. In short, all cross-border issues could be debated seriously and frequently through such a process.

Do we have the technology do this now? Perhaps it is not quite perfected at this time, but I think that in five or ten years it will be there and we will be able to conduct what I call a virtual parliament that will have no borders and that will be able to meet frequently. That is something concrete for which we as parliamentarians must prepare.

We are experiencing a revolution in more ways than one. I think that the work of a parliamentarian must also go through a revolution and follow this path that opens onto the rest of the world. As I said just now, I am absolutely not against this type of globalization.

What I think we should aim for is globalization with a democratic face, in which wealth will be distributed and every human being will be able to achieve his or her potential.

Of course, if we want to set up a free trade area—and I want to stress that I do not oppose trade between countries—I have a small problem with the word free, because free trade in my opinion means a total absence of rules. If the economy is not bound by any rules, it is not, I am sorry to say, going to work. If we let the market alone dictate the political agenda of our societies, I have a problem with that. I believe that the economy should be subject to a minimum of controls—no, controls pure and simple.

We need environmental and social rules. We need to think about those who do not have ready access to the new economy. A number of challenges lie ahead. Of course, we can get discouraged and lament that the situation makes no sense. However, we can also roll up our sleeves, look for solutions and fight for a world or continent in keeping with our vision and values.

Basically, this is the message that I want to convey to you today and it comes from the heart. Over the course of the next month, things are likely to get rather intense. I am pleased that the summit is taking place in our backyard because it has generated a great deal of debate, notably among CEGEP and university students. Unfortunately, one phenomenon appears to pose a threat to democracy, namely the public's waning interest in politics. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am certain that members have observed the situation firsthand in their ridings.

Conversely, another phenomenon is emerging, namely a growing interest in all questions of this nature. We saw it in Seattle, in Prague, in Nice, in Washington and elsewhere. Concerns have been expressed and it is our job, not to reassure people, but rather to encourage and promote debate.

Increased trade and broader economic ties between nations may well result in a redistribution of wealth and I have no problem with this. If, after thoroughly analysing and debating the situation, we conclude that a particular course of action is warranted, then I do not have a problem with that either. I am quite receptive, provided of course that I am able to go to my constituents and explain to them how matters stand. However, I cannot do this now because I do not know how matters stand. Some discussion has of course been taking place here and there.

Once again, the minister for international co-operation said to me: “Stéphan, these negotiations cover more than just economic aspects; there is also the aspect of international co-operation, there are social, environmental and educational considerations.” The minister's approach is appropriate in some respects, in terms of access to education, which is the engine of development. There is worthwhile work being done.

Furthermore, she told me that the media, unfortunately, do not cover these things. Unfortunately, the media are attracted to what is sensational. This is perhaps a little sad. There is worthwhile work being done, I agree. However, if a person is not participating in the debate, or closely involved in all these things, it is difficult to be for or against. That is basically my point of view.

We recently learned that Quebec, which is hosting the summit, will not be able to address the participants unless it sponsors cocktail receptions, unless it is a summit sponsor. In that case, it is the people's elected representatives who have to pay for an admission ticket. In any event, as the Prime Minister said, this has absolutely no influence; let us hope not. However, if it does, I believe this is deplorable, especially when a nation like Quebec, which would like to be present at the negotiations, has to contemplate paying for access to all these people.

The same applies to me. I am an elected representative, and I would like to be able to tell my fellow citizens what is happening, tell them not to worry, that everything is fine, or that if something does go wrong I will be there to defend them.

My only option is to come here to express my views at 1.30 a.m. Will they be heard by the government party? Obviously, I may not allude to the number of members present in this House, and so I will not do so. Suffice it to say that I am certain my comments will not be heard by as many as I had hoped. That is all right, we will continue to do our work. We will continue to hold conferences, to encourage debate and to ensure that there is greater transparency and democracy.

I will continue to do my research on how we can adopt telecommunications instruments because I believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a job to do. Despite my criticism of this socioeconomic and political reality, I find it exciting to be involved in politics because of these challenges. It is very exciting: we are facing major challenges and it happens that we are among the parliamentarians of this era who will have to adapt to this new reality and play a greater role in these matters.

Unless the leaders of government continue to sweep us under the rug and tell us, “Get yourselves elected and come make nice little 1.30 speeches in the morning. You will be able to let off some steam and you will feel better”. But no, this does not help me to unwind; I will be going back to bed. Nonetheless, I will tell my fellow citizens, “We were able to debate the FTAA, but we debated it at 1.30 a.m.”

I don't want to seem disdainful of those who work nights; I raise my hat to them. I think we all need people who work at night. However, I do not think it will have the same impact at this time of night. Fortunately, there will be Hansard .

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the House, who always work at this time.

This basically concludes my comments. I would be pleased to answer any questions from colleagues who are still present and feel strongly about this issue.

[Virtual Parliament, March 14th, 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. Subsequently, at the interparliamentary forum of the Americas, which was held here in Ottawa last week, we passed the following proposal:

Recognizing that co-operation among parliaments is essential and that globalization brings about issues that require debate and actions that go beyond national frontiers;

Recognizing that we must participate in an active manner in those debates and that we must increase exchange and dialogue among parliament members from other countries, from the hemisphere and the world;

Recognizing that a new formula, apart from occasional summits and gatherings, must be developed to increase the productivity of our work, in order to allow parliament members to exchange on a more regular basis;

We, parliamentarians from the Americas, will acquire the proper and available telecommunications instruments that will allow us to hold virtual assemblies or committees between parliamentarians from the Americas.

[Summit Of The Americas, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will read a statement that comes directly from the students of Alma college and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. It is directed to the Minister for International Trade representing the public at the summit of the Americas:

That the summit of the Americas and Canada's participation in it be conditional on human rights and the environment being given priority over trade interests in the negotiations. In addition, public participation must be given greater importance.

For this to happen, the students want all negotiations to be governed by a code of ethics and subject to the universal declaration of human rights and to environmental protection in the case of all countries concerned. This will mean human, including workers' rights must be respected.

Finally, the students want the texts of the negotiations to be made public immediately.

[Summit Of The Americas, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, globalization is a very covert phenomenon. The person surfing the Internet, the pensioner examining the state of his pension fund, the farmer milking his cows and selling the milk are all affected by various aspects of globalization.

The issues are determined around international tables. Only sovereign states sit at these tables. Quebec, a mere province of Canada, does not exist for the world. The country of Quebec would.

The Summit of the Americas to establish a free trade area for the entire hemisphere will be held in Quebec's capital city. The Premier of Quebec, the Premier of all Quebecers, has not received any sort of an invitation to this summit, which nevertheless will be held in Quebec's capital city.

The federal government is trying to minimize the Quebec nation. While Quebec's economic future will in part be decided at this summit, Quebec itself will be absent.

One day, Quebecers will truly host the whole world in the country of Quebec.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this kind of consultation is, unfortunately, not necessary. I will give an example.

Last fall, there was a meeting of the ministers of finance and the governors of the central banks of the G20. At that time, the Minister of Finance, who defined the G20 as a kind of board of governors of the world economy, met with a number of NGOs, or non-governmental organizations.

I wanted to take part, but what was I told? “No, it is for NGOs only”. So there was no open debate. The media was excluded. There is still a long way to go before there is any real transparency.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of it. I also know that there are some tensions between parliamentary groups, between COPA, FIPA and others, and it is unfortunate. Yes, I will certainly attend the meeting. We should also think about how tough it is to hold these kinds of meetings.

I had the opportunity to attend two meetings of international parliamentarians, the first one when the agreement on the prohibition of anti-personnel landmines was ratified in Mozambique and the second one at the Forum of Federations at Mont-Tremblant.

I can say though that in such meetings it is hard to have in-depth ongoing discussions like the ones we have in committee where we meet once a week, on a regular basis.

There are still obstacles to be overcome but I will definitely take part in such events. In fact, I promote them. I said earlier that it was not just about having a few cocktails, but that it was important to be able to address major issues.

Will we one day have an assembly sitting not just a few days but several weeks? Are we moving toward some kind of continental parliament? I am not talking about a continental government, but rather a continental parliament or even a world parliament where we could debate these issues.

I do not pretend to have the answers to all these questions, but I think we should look to the future and find forward looking solutions to some of today's problems.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a topic which is of paramount importance to me since the summit of the Americas on the free trade area of the Americas will be held in Quebec City next April 20 and 21.

By an absolutely incredible coincidence, as far as I am concerned, this will also be a very important anniversary: on April 20 three years ago I attempted to initiate a crucially important debate on the social impacts of globalization. As you will recall, I attempted to raise the issue by walking out of the House with my seat, which I brought to my constituents.

The question I wanted to raise was this: in the context of globalization, what is happening to political power? The statistics show clearly that, in spite of the economic growth of the past few years, there is an increase in poverty.

This debate meant a lot to me then and still does. Whether we talk about globalization or “continentalization”, most of the issues are very similar. I have worked very hard for our role to be taken seriously, as well as for an in-depth debate on the revolution we are experiencing today. Who is in charge? Who is in charge of the political agenda? Is it the elected representatives, international bodies or the marketplace? These are very important questions.

I am convinced I am not the only parliamentarian who is wondering who is in charge of the world economic agenda. The mere fact that we are asking the question indicates that somewhere there is a lack of transparency or a lack of democracy.

I have a number of concerns regarding the future. As the youngest parliamentarian in this House, I did something very daring and I asked myself a number of questions. I believe there is now somebody younger than I am in this House. But I can still wonder about the kind of society I will be living in, 20 or 30 years from now, as the gap between rich and poor is getting wider and wider.

I do not like the term free trade area too much. Economic trade area of the Americas would be more to my liking. I am in no way against international trade. It is a very good thing. For one thing, I want to be able to have bananas, and I hope people in other countries will be able to continue to buy maple syrup. My example is somewhat trivial, but it shows how important international trade is.

What I do not like is the word free. Does it mean there are no rules? Certainly not. We need a trade framework and what I would call rules of the game.

Why should we have rules of the game? Because the economy cannot be set apart from the social issues. We cannot say that trade agreements do no concern people, that they are purely a commercial matter, while the social impact is something else. That is not true. Everything is connected, and that is why we need more extensive debates. Hence, the importance of this opposition day and, at the same time, the tragedy that we are having a single day of debate on this issue.

We should have more extensive discussions. We should have a debate on social values. We do not need to ask why people took to the streets in Seattle, in Prague, in Nice, or in Washington, and why they will do the same in Quebec City in April. It is because they are concerned. They are wondering, and they do not like the kind of society that seems to be emerging. I share their concerns.

I wonder what will happen if the economy is left to its own devices, if we have free trade everywhere. I think a free market system will only lead to increased competition. The question I ask myself is what the consequences of this increased competition will be.

I will point out some of the possible consequences. To be competitive, a business will probably try to hire the brightest people, which is very commendable. In this knowledge based economy, we all have that goal.

To lower its production costs, will this same business have a tendency to overexploit natural resources, to pay no attention to the environment, to lower salaries or to simply lay off workers? Another thing would be to try not to pay taxes. These are all things to be expected when a business wants to remain competitive.

I have nothing against competition, but I think there has to be a framework. In a free trade area of the Americas, we have to set rules, including social rules. In an economy which has a growing tendency to overheat and to skid, we must build safety rails to make sure we have a social safety net. We have to talk about health care, access to education, income security and environmental protection. These are all absolutely necessary.

I think this must be done through an open debate where both the public and parliamentarians have the opportunity to express their views.

My colleagues talked earlier about the multilateral agreement on investment. I hope we all got our lesson from what happened with this agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors and which parliamentarians were certainly not aware of. Fortunately, there was a leak. Things like that should remind us that it should not happen again.

Today, three years after this agreement failed, what are we doing? We are asking to see the documents, we are asking for parliamentarians to play their role and vote on the ratification of such an agreement. I find it almost absurd that we need to have this kind of debate, because it seems quite obvious to me. It is abundantly clear.

I feel there is still a long way to go. I think that we, as parliamentarians, have many questions to ask ourselves about the role we want to play in the globalization and continentalization of economies. As a member of parliament who was elected in a national forum, if I might say—every member of parliament in the world is elected to sit in a country's parliament—I think reflection is in order.

Finally, the issue of parliamentary reform has been raised regularly. I believe a reform of parliament is absolutely necessary. However, a true reform would mean pondering the issues and developing measures in order to redefine the role of members of parliament in a context of globalization and continentalization. I would like to talk to parliamentarians from Chile, Argentina and Guatemala. I would like to know about their own reality and their own difficulties. I am convinced that most of them have the same troubles and the same concerns as all of us here.

As we enter this new millennium, this is how we should review the role of parliamentarians. It is not sufficient to meet with members of other parliaments over a drink once in a while. We should meet regularly. How will we deal with issues that go beyond our borders? When I say this, naturally I am thinking about international democracy, the democracy of the International Monetary Fund, of the World Bank and of the World Trade Organization.

I am also thinking about the regularization of capital markets and issues such as the Tobin tax for example, issues that have to be submitted to scrutiny by many countries and parliamentarians. There is the Internet, the environment, the incessant expansion of international crime, the anticompetitive rules and those transnational giants emerging more and more to become worrisome monopolies; there are ethics issues like genetically engineered organisms and biosafety. There are numerous questions that go beyond the boundaries of this parliament and that will have to be examined in a much broader context since we cannot escape globalization or continentalization.

This is all the time I had, but I will gladly answer questions.