Stéphan Tremblay

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

My colleague from Charlevoix, who faces the same situation in his riding, knows it is for 21 weeks.

This might seems like a very innocent series of figures for members here in the House, but for many families, many workers and many employers, these figures can have major implications.

I have tried to determine the loss of potential revenue for my region, statistically, as far as the money and the premiums we pay are concerned. As a good member of parliament, I thought “I will go get this information”. I contacted the HRDC economist. Who did he refer me to? To the department's chief actuary in Ottawa, who came to the riding to explain why this unexpected change was made, in summer when everybody was on holidays.

Much to my disappointment, we did not get any appropriate answer. The officials from the department led us to believe that it was the employability figures that explained the new ways of doing things. In short, it was a completely unsatisfactory argument.

Of course, people protested, not only in my riding but in the riding of my colleague from Charlevoix. They were also protests from the north shore, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé Peninsula, where the same situation prevailed. In view of the flurry of protests, but also, probably and unfortunately, because there was a general election in the offing, the minister concluded that transitional measures were necessary.

Why did we need transitional measures? So that our workers could get used to it. I completely disagree with the idea that workers have to get used to poverty. This is totally unacceptable to me. Nobody can get used to poverty and we will see more of it with this legislation and the new regional realities.

I was talking with the minister and she told me “Stéphan, the solution is not unemployment but employment”. I totally agree. I too believe that employment is the solution.

In this country, in certain sectors, as we can see in my region or in my colleague's region, the reality and the economic structure are such that employment insurance is a tool of development, since it makes up for deficiencies related to our economic structure.

In the tourism industry, for example, summer is the high season. Unfortunately, the season is rather short. Some would say that the season should be extended. We are working on it. Serge Plourde, the president of the Association touristique régionale, was telling me that the government must absolutely understand that keeping these new regulations, which make employment insurance less and less accessible, will have major impacts on the tourism industry. People are unable to qualify or to make ends meet.

Come February, when no more income is coming in and you do not qualify for social assistance because you own a house or a car, what are you supposed to live on? Air? That is what is going to happen. According to the tourism industry, this will result in an increase in employee turnover, which will have a serious impact on a fast expanding industry that is trying to extend the season, as many would like it to do.

The same is true in agriculture and the forestry industry. There is no way to prevent the ground from freezing. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is. I am a former bush pilot, and in the bush, we land on water. When the lakes freeze, the season is dead. That is the way it is.

The government has to take its role seriously in committee. The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport mentioned this in the election. Right off, the government said it was prepared to further relax its bill, to use the words of the secretary of state, “if well reasoned and justified arguments are brought forward”.

If my fellow citizens are given the opportunity to explain in committee, I promise that they will provide well reasoned and justified arguments.

In the same vein, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport made a personal commitment to apply corrective measures to the Employment Insurance Act. He said, moreover:

Once a Liberal majority is elected—

I think this is what we have here.

—we will reinstate the process and make sure that the changes are effective and meet the needs, for the most part, of the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Canadians as a whole...I have made a commitment to change the law and we will see to it.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, that is my home. I would be prepared, perhaps, to forgive a government that imposed time allocation today in the context of this very important debate if it were responsible and in committee the public had the opportunity to speak and present well reasoned and justified arguments.

What I find hard to justify is that on July 1, 2000 the government introduced a new measure that for the people at home brings big changes. Why did the government want to cut employment insurance? It is all the harder to comprehend given that the fund's coffers are overflowing. We are not in difficult economic times. We will be, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, because this will have phenomenal consequences, not only for the workers, but for the employers as well.

During the election campaign, business people were telling me “Stéphan, the government must absolutely understand this reality, because there are going to be serious economic consequences”.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who will have to live on a shoestring this winter, but I also have sympathy for employers who will have difficulty keeping their employees. If the government wants very economic arguments, we will give some.

I have been very interested in the issue of globalization for several years. This issue is getting more and more important, and I am very pleased. I think this, as well as our role as parliamentarians in the House, might be the subject of another debate. What must we do in the context of globalization?

I am not against globalization. I am against certain forms of globalization, and I will mention one. In its strategy for employment, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said:

To increase labour market flexibility in a number of countries, it is essential to reduce the largesse of compensation under unemployment and other social benefits, and to limit access to these programs.

It also states:

Canada is the only country that seems to have applied the recommendations made during the first series of reviews.

What is governing us? Is it consistent and sensible economic strategies or a bunch of bureaucrats in international organizations who make recommendations on employment that are absolutely inadequate and totally out of touch with the reality in our regions?

I hope we will be able to seriously debate this in committee.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to rise today for two reasons, one being that it is the first opportunity I have to speak in the House since I was re-elected. The other reason has to do with the relevance and importance of the employment insurance issue to my region.

I rise not only as a parliamentarian, but also as a former bush pilot who has had to rely on employment insurance in the past. I will put the problem in context.

What we have experienced in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area since last July has to do with the fact that, under the act, employment insurance zones have to be reviewed every five years. I did not lose any time in making representations, saying that the status quo had to be maintained, which meant that people had to work a minimum of 420 hours to be eligible for 33 weeks of benefits. I was not the only one thinking this way, since other parliamentary colleagues shared that opinion.

In my region, Human Resources Development Canada, through its economist, recommended to the minister that the status quo be maintained. Why? Not just for the sake of it, but rather because it matched the reality of our region.

To our surprise, when the HRDC data were made public on July 1, it was not 420 hours any more that people needed to work to qualify for 33 weeks of benefits but rather 525 hours, and for how many weeks?

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I have here an OECD document entitled “The OECD Jobs Strategy”. It makes several recommendations. Some of these recommendations are to make work schedules more flexible, and to review unemployment packages and related benefits.

The report says further:

In order to bring more flexibility to the labour market in a number of countries, it was essential to make unemployment packages and other social benefits less generous, to tighten up eligibility rules.

The following quote can be found further in the report:

Canada is the only country which appears to have implemented the recommendations regarding the reduction of the level and length of benefits made as a result of the first set of studies.

Does this mean that the government is implementing international strategies dictated by the OECD in the belief that if benefits are too generous, workers will become lazy and will no longer want to work? People do not want handouts; they want work. That is abundantly clear.

We have seen the government make indiscriminate cuts without a care about their impact on families. I have people coming to my office who in February will experience the spring gap. They will not qualify for social assistance and their unemployment benefits will run out. What are they going to live on? Thin air? I believe the government is completely out of touch with the harsh economic realities in certain regions. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I ask the government to go further with this bill, it can do it. All summer long, we heard it say it could not do anything without introducing a bill. Here is that bill, but it does nothing. It is totally absurd. I am looking forward to my colleague's remarks on this.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and a question for the hon. member.

When the idea for this reform came up last June, there was a so-called consultation. I referred to HRDC officials in my riding, who suggested to the minister that she maintain the status quo, since the economic indicators showed that was the best course.

At the time this reform just mentioned by the hon. member was introduced in my riding, the minimum number of hours had jumped from 420 to 490, which is absolutely shocking. Our first questions were these. What will be the impact? What percentage of workers will be affected? What will be the shortfall economically? It seems to me that these were perfectly reasonable figures to want to know.

I therefore invited the HRDC economist to come and share his figures with us. To my great surprise, it was the chief actuary who came all the way from Ottawa to meet with groups in my riding interested in the issue. He ended up telling us he did not have these figures.

Does this mean that the government has produced a reform without knowing the economic impact on families, without knowing how many people were going to be without benefits in the month of February? I am speaking today on behalf of these families. This is ridiculous.

What is more, this complete sham of a bill has the potential to restore balance and a certain justice, but instead of that, what we have is window dressing. I admit that the bill is headed in the right direction, such as with the idea of eliminating the intensity rule. As for the rest, however, it is wrong to think that this is progress. What it is, is electioneering, which is completely unacceptable.

Does the member think it right that the chief actuary—who is supposed to know the figures, who is preparing a reform, does not know the figures, the impact, the percentage of workers who will be affected and the economic shortfall for the region?

[Treaties Act, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot overlook what my colleague has just said. A year ago, I tabled a petition signed by 50,000 people asking the House to set up a parliamentary committee to elaborate a process whereby the civil society would be consulted on the huge issue of globalization, a matter of real concern in this country and throughout the world.

Now I am told that the government is consulting the people. I have serious doubts about that and I think the government is trying to muddle the issues by making these assertions. Unfortunately, my time has run out. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. I do want to congratulate my hon. colleague, because it is at least a step in the right direction.

[Treaties Act, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded.

I find it a little strange that my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry had to introduce a bill on this issue. It seems to me that this is so obvious that we should not even need to bring the subject up.

Major social changes are occurring worldwide. With the huge opportunities that are provided by the development of technology and transportation, our planet is getting smaller. Distances are increasingly shorter, so that trade, cultural and political exchanges among countries are increasingly a common occurrence. This phenomenon has social and political impacts.

Most people call this phenomenon the globalization of economies. This globalization necessarily leads to more treaties between countries. The increase in the number of treaties must be further examined at the parliamentary level.

Here, the government can sign treaties without consulting the House. So what are we doing here, as parliamentarians, since international treaties are becoming increasingly important?

The last time I spoke on this bill, I talked about what happened with the multilateral investment agreement, which was being negotiated secretly at the OECD. At some point during negotiations, someone leaked the document on the Internet. When groups of citizens around the world looked at the contents of the negotiations, they quickly opposed this project. Pockets of dissent developed all over the world, aimed at thwarting the agreement.

There is one thing that I wonder about: what would the role of parliamentarians have been in this? Why are members of parliament elected? Is it merely to enact national legislation? In a world that is becoming more and more international, a world where there are increasing numbers of treaties, it has become absolutely essential for the good of my fellow citizens that I be familiar with the contents of such treaties.

Taking the example of one very important treaty of the past decade, it is possible under NAFTA for companies to bring a suit against government. This has happened in connection with an environmental rule, when the government had passed legislation banning MMT, for the protection of the public.

A company that risked losing a market brought a suit against the Canadian government, and thus against the Canadian people, since the elected representatives of the people had passed an environmental regulation.

I believe that the bill we are looking at today lies at the heart of the reflection on democracy that must take place. This is a matter very dear to my heart. Moreover, I have tried to raise it in a highly visible manner, if I may put it that way. All of this issue of political power, the power of elected representatives, and the fact that it seems to be being whittled away at, is dear to my heart.

This week, moreover, in the Hill Times , a government MP spoke of how greatly over-centralized power was within this parliament. Is it the MPs who make the decisions, or is it the PMO? I believe that the 301 members of the House must be consulted. These members represent the interests of their fellow citizens.

The impact of international agreements on our fellow citizens is increasing. As proof of this, in my riding this week I had the case of emu breeders who will not be eligible for a reimbursement program because of an international World Trade Organization agreement. I refer to these cases merely as very concrete examples of the fact that the impact of international agreements on populations is increasing. Who represents that population? In my opinion, the members of parliament. It should not be only the Prime Minister with a few ministers who sign these international treaties without any prior debate.

The legislation presented by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is extremely relevant in these times of globalization. This is only the beginning. There are many other issues that should be debated with regard to the role of members of parliament in a context of globalization.

We will eventually have to hold a debate—which I am in favour of—about the social impacts of globalization and also about who will determine the direction that globalization should take. As we know, more and more people are demonstrating everywhere in the world; they are not necessarily opposed to globalization but to the direction globalization is taking, and I am one of them.

I think a broad debate must be held about that. A major part of that debate relates to the whole issue of world governance or world co-ordination, call it what we may, or reform of current international forums which sorely lack for democratic legitimacy, in my opinion.

It is the same thing for the G-20 group chaired by the Minister of Finance of Canada. What legitimacy does he have in his actions when he goes on the international stage? Not only do they not consult members of parliament, they do not consult the population.

In this regard, where is democracy? Does it boil down to an election every four years to choose a government and a Prime Minister and a few ministers who will go on the international stage? I think there is a lack of democracy here.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I find this a very relevant question, as it deals with the civil society. It is thanks to the civil society that we are talking about these issues today. It is the civil society that appealed to us, and when I say us, I mean politicians. The hon. member will remember that Biotech Action Montréal appealed to us on these issues. It is the civil society that sounded the alarm by submitting petitions and by suggesting the introduction of bills.

In short, young activists wanted to stir things up on these issues, because they were concerned. The same happened with the multilateral investment agreement where, for the first time, we saw a activist movement globalize through the Internet, which led to these issues being raised. We saw this also in Seattle.

In conclusion, I think that, in a democracy, people need to be vigilant. In this case, it is the people who alerted parliamentarians to these issues. So I applaud all the activists and all the people who are interested in these collective issues that are of crucial importance for the future.

All my colleagues in the House certainly agree that we are confronted with so many increasingly complex issues that the civil society should act as a watchdog and alert parliamentarians to these issues before.

It is simply impossible for any member of Parliament to keep track of all problems. If the public is vigilant, issues end up in the political arena. An example of this is Biotech Action Montréal, which took an interest in food security, helped with research, raised concerns, underlined the long term impact of genetically modified foods, and informed the public.

That is exactly what should be done. It is wonderful. In this instance, the voice democracy was heard. I hope there will be more cases like this one. I encourage all citizens to be more vigilant. These issues are fascinating and very interesting, but, most of all, they are crucial for mankind.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address this issue, even though I did not really have time to prepare, because I was supposed to speak later. Still, I am pleased to speak from the heart about an issue which, I think, concerns all of us to a high degree.

I dedicate this speech to my brother's daughter, who should be born today, if she is not already born at this moment. I dedicate my speech to her, because today's debate concerns food safety, something she will have to live with, as will all of us.

I am also pleased, as the first critic on globalization in the House, to address a topic that leads us directly to the ethical issues to which globalization can give rise.

We are going through a number of revolutions and the case of genetically modified organisms is a telling one. Globalization brings about all sorts of things, and we have had, among other issues, to deal with food safety. We can now say that the Earth can adequately feed nine billion people. Our planet can feed nine billion human beings. Since there are only six to seven billion of us, there is an incredible abundance of food. But the problem, and I think everyone here will agree, is in how that food is distributed.

But even though this is a very interesting and relevant issue, it is not today's topic. Today's topic is not about who will eat, but about what we will eat. An increasing number—and this is a global issue—of people all over the world are concerned about what they are eating.

In 50 or 100 years, people might look back at the history of genetically modified organisms and talk about how the international community was concerned, and about GMOs scaring people. That may be true. Genetically modified organisms may be a step in the right direction for mankind and they may be something extremely positive. But, then again, they might not.

There are perhaps long term consequences for the environment, food safety and human beings. We cannot take chances when these are at stake. The fact of the matter is that, right now, we do not know, and that is what worries me. I am worried less by the positions being taken on both sides of the House than by the lack of knowledge about the long-term consequences of genetically modified organisms.

What I find more interesting—and this will be the thrust of my speech—is that this is a problem like many others, but one that has something in common with other problems we are experiencing right now which are caused by globalization, i.e. it is a globalized issue. I am going to use this expression because, when one talks about globalization, one can talk about the globalization of certain things, good or bad; but when I talk about a globalized problem, I mean that it concerns the whole world to the same extent ultimately. Everyone has the right to know what he is eating.

I am going to look at another aspect that concerns me and I will perhaps digress a bit from the issue of GMOs and take a look at globalized issues. I find it a bit—I will not say strange—but perhaps worrisome that we are still debating these issues nationally. We are facing a world problem that is being debated nationally and I am sure that a number of parliaments in the world right now are raising all these questions—perhaps not today, but they have already addressed them or are in the process of doing so—are engaging in this kind of debate, particularly in Europe, where the issue is very advanced. There have been international meetings where there was discussion about genetically modified organisms.

My question, and I put it to members of the House, is this: What is the role of parliamentarians with respect to issues that are now globalized? When I refer to globalized issues, I also refer to the problems now caused by financial markets, by ecological disasters, by environmental issues, by epidemics, by genetic codes of ethics and all the resulting scientific advances. Who oversees these issues? Should there not be an international authority? Several authorities may already be examining those issues. Who will be responsible for legislating? Who will have to establish an code of ethics on the use of science on humans?

People have been eating genetically modified foods for several years already without even knowing it, and I am sure that many members did not know it either. We have been eating those foods for several years now. Have we been used as guinea pigs? Are my fellow citizens and myself being used as guinea pigs? I am concerned. I believe that the research being done in this area is being conducted by multinationals, large companies which have huge financial resources and the means to call upon the brightest minds and the best researchers to work for these same companies producing genetically modified foods.

I am concerned about this extraordinary combination of science and financial interests of large companies, because we cannot deny that the first goal of those companies is to make profit and become more efficient for their shareholders. I have no problem with that. I am concerned however about who will establish the rules regarding the use of scientific progress because this has an impact on everyone.

When I listen to proponents of genetically modified organisms, I say “Yes, you may be right”, and when I listen to those who express some concern, I tell them “Yes, perhaps”. The problem is that I would like to be able to do like those multinational companies that call upon the best researchers and the brightest minds in the world to achieve technological breakthroughs.

From a political and democratic point of view, it is not time that we, as parliamentarians, be able to ask the best researchers in the world how GMOs could be used not to increase profits, but in regard to the safety of those organisms for human beings who eat them? I think this is a fundamental issue.

I find this topic of interest because all my reflection focusing on the urgency of discussing certain world issues more thoroughly relates to globalization. I have often said I have nothing against globalization, far from it. I am in favour of globalization if there are rules of ethics for the good of the people. That is what we need at this time.

Does this mean that the direction politics and democracy must take is to make use of parliamentary forums and tools, to make use of debates, in order to find a unanimous response to questions as crucial to food as those relating to GMOs? I believe that this entire issue must lead us to reflect on a new outlook, with an awareness of our limitations as members of national parliaments with regard to setting frameworks and drafting regulations that relate to problems that have now become global in scope.

Of course this can be discussed in the House. Canada can adopt a position and then defend it in the international forum. However, I think that the time has come to work in a different way, to work all together, saying “We have a common problem here, which is genetically modified organisms”. The problem is that we do not know what the long term effects of GMOs will be. The reflection will have to be focused on this with a view to a common solution, one which will some day bring all partners on line, I trust.

Today there has been considerable progress in this area, and everyone knows about GMOs. The process is moving along, more or less, but some work has been slow. Who is responsible? We have a pretty good idea. There is matter for concern, however.

I can see that the future will bring more and more problems and issues with it. It is our duty as parliamentarians to reflect on this. We must quickly start thinking of mechanisms that would better equip us to respond properly to problems such as the one we face at the present time, so that the public will no longer be used as guinea pigs.

[Treaties Act, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that I do not have much time to speak to this bill, which I think is a very good one, introduced by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I am very interested in issues of globalization. In a world where areas of activity that were formerly more the concern of the United Nations are now making their way onto the world stage, we will be increasingly called upon to make decisions on an international scale and to ratify treaties.

One question comes to me right off the bat and it is this: What is the role of parliamentarians in this regard? Should we always rely on governments to negotiate treaties? I think that one of the most flagrant examples we have seen is the multilateral agreement on investment. People will recall that, for two years, this agreement was being secretly negotiated by the OECD, an organization of the 29 richest countries in the world. Nobody in the world, except of course the negotiators, knew this was in the works. We parliamentarians were not in the picture. It took a leak by one of the negotiators on the Internet before pockets of resistance began to spring up around the world.

I think that this was an historic event because, for the first time, we saw civil society join forces internationally, we saw young people the world over ready to be mowed down rather than see this agreement signed. I am thinking in particular of the young people of salAMI in Montreal, who resorted to civil disobedience.

I may not approve of such methods. I am only pointing them out.

An international agreement was being negotiated behind closed doors. When people saw what was in the agreement, they said “This does not make sense. It should be discussed”. This is what democracy is all about. It is about debating issues. It is about wondering where treaties like this will lead us.

Unfortunately, this is all the time I have for today, but I was pleased to—

[Human Resources Development, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government set up a trust, appointed a friend of the Prime Minister as trustee, agreed to the buyback of the company, gave the money in spite of the anticipated bankruptcy and waived its rights under the contract.

Is this not a long series of events that are not coincidences but rather the outcome of a plan engineered by the Prime Minister's friend Gilles Champagne?