House of Commons Hansard #94 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was world.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC

You are here to serve the House, not the Liberals.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I believe that the House has decided that the motion is not votable at this time. The question can be put again, and I can certainly do that. As members know, such a request is frequently made in the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, and perhaps the blues will show it equally clearly, that when you first asked for the unanimous consent of the House, it was agreed.

Following this consent, we heard the parliamentary secretary ask you a question, but that was after you received the unanimous consent of the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I will put the question again. Is there unanimous consent to make the matter votable?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

An hon. member

You are here to serve the House, not the Liberals.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Yes, I am here to serve the House. I am a servant of the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member is disagreeing but I think it was clear. I asked the question. The parliamentary secretary asked a question in response. I then answered the question for the parliamentary secretary and asked the question so that the House got the question clearly. He was asking for clarification of my question about whether or not it was votable and I answered the question.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that, when you asked for consent, you obtained it. The parliamentary secretary, who was near the curtains, moved forward after consent was given. He asked whether consent was on the amendment or the motion itself.

You obtained this consent, Mr. Speaker. If you decide to change the House's decision, to change the rules in mid-stream, it is a very sad comment on the kind of debate that is possible among parliamentarians on the issue of globalization.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think what is clear is that at the first instance when you first put the question, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said no. Then when you rose and asked the second question, I asked for clarification because I did not hear the translation in time. I asked if this was a request for unanimous consent to have the non-votable motion become votable and at that point I thanked you for that clarification. You asked the question and I said no. This is a non-votable item and it will remain so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, here is another version of the facts. You are saying:“We said yes”. No one heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Earlier it was yes. Now we are getting a new version to the effect that someone said “no”. Maybe somebody thought “no”. We are here to think, I hope, but also to speak. So now there is a second version.

I hope the decision to give unanimous consent will be honoured. If that does not happen, it will be, as my colleague put it, a very sad comment on debates in this place.

If you uphold the decision, I hope they will explain their opposition and their subservience at the time of the vote later today on hepatitis C. It is the attitude of the irresponsible.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When there is unanimous consent in this House for a proposal, the House must understand the question. The hon. parliamentary secretary indicated exactly what I said. He did not understand the question I put to the House. He indicated the lack of clarification on this point.

Unanimous consent is not indicated until the Speaker of the House has, after the question has been put, indicated that it has been given and the matter decided.

I did not make such a pronouncement or decision, because I have entertained the question. The issue is very clear and the matter is now closed.

We now continue with questions and comments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

If it is on the same matter, I will not hear other arguments. I have heard enough arguments on this point.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will speak no more than ten seconds. When we sought unanimous consent, the parliamentary secretary was not present. He cannot therefore say that he was opposed. Therefore there was unanimous consent.

I would point out that I will not give unanimous consent for you to seek another vote again.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House at the time and I said no. Maybe it was not loud enough, but I said no and shook my head. I was in the House at the time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely and respectfully suggest you review the tapes and the blues to confirm that you had unanimous consent, although that was later denied, but you had it. And it is not normal for you to keep asking for consent until you no longer have it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board, who was not in his own seat, has just admitted it. He did not speak but shook his head no.

He has just admitted that he did not speak but shook his head, and I agree that one ought to use one's head before speaking, but when the time comes for a person to indicate consent or non-consent, that must be done by speaking, not nodding. He has just said that is what he did.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. That is the end of the argument.

It is obvious that what we have here is a case where there was no unanimous consent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

An hon. member

There was consent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

No, there is no consent until the Chair indicates that the matter is settled. I did not so rule. I did not give such an indication because I did not receive clear unanimous consent.

When the parliamentary secretary asked his question and I responded, he indicated that he did not give his consent, and that is the end of the matter. The debate is closed.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He had the guts to stomp out of the House with his chair to stir up a discussion over the issue of poverty in Canada. There are children who go to school on an empty stomach.

I want to congratulate him. I hope the media will change their coverage on this issue, stop dealing with the chair incident and start talking about the poor in this country.

Here is my question for my colleague. Now that we have had free trade and NAFTA in Canada for such a long time, and now that we are leaning toward signing the MAI, does he not think we have more food banks than ever in Canada?

This is not the Royal Bank I am talking about, but food banks families have to go to because they do not have any money left to feed themselves. The EI fund has billions of dollars in surplus, but some Canadians are starving.

Could my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean respond to this?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphan Tremblay Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very pleased to see that I have support coming not only from the Bloc Quebecois but also from other parties. I hope that my colleagues opposite and from all parties will seize on this issue. Furthermore, if they choose not to do so right now, I think time will prove me right and we will eventually be forced to take a very serious look at this issue.

In response to the question my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked me earlier, essentially, I left with my seat to elicit a broad societal debate. I never said I had all the answers. I plan to focus my efforts on getting the point across to the public and to parliamentarians alike that a debate must be held on this matter, that is, the consequences of globalization on political power.

If we find that globalization does limit the power of parliamentarians at home and abroad, there will be an urgent need for the public to look into the matter and understand what is at stake.

I have said repeatedly this week that any loss of political power means a so-called loss of democracy. This therefore concerns us all, the political parties represented in this House as well as the public at large.

I do not claim to have all the answers, far from it. However, it seems to me that there should be a debate in which parliamentarians and the public would share their views and there is none. This is of greater concern to me.

Of course, we can look at the immediate consequences of globalization, and there are many. But what will be required, and sooner than later, is a comprehensive debate. Then, we will be able to deal with specifics, the consequences, the stakes and, more importantly, possible solutions we can explore to ensure a framework is in place for globalization to benefit the citizens of this and other countries.

That is the challenge facing us. As I said, this is a complex message and the debate is just beginning. It will probably be a 10-year process. That is why it must start as soon as possible.

I hope that, as the public gets further involved in these issues, parliamentarians in this House will pay close attention and make sure that more concrete solutions are found.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Halton Ontario

Liberal

Julian Reed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about my young friend from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am very glad that he brought his chair back and will continue to sit in this House.

I was in the House when he expressed frustration and left with his chair. I saw the frustration of someone in his twenties whose idealism has not yet been tempered with the reality of age as it goes on.

I would just say to him that he should never give up his idealism. He should always keep it. As the years go on he will find that it is always tempered with reality.

It is frustrating to watch poverty in the world, seemingly on the increase. I do not think that child poverty can be isolated from poverty in general. It seems to me that if there is family poverty, then there is child poverty. The two go hand in hand. There is no magic formula for simply eliminating child poverty with the stroke of a pen or a chequebook.

I would also comment that some of the contents of this debate tend to argue against some of the very elements that are helping child poverty and helping the economies around the world. In order to get a perspective on that one has to look at history and the human condition that existed before countries began to interact with one another.

It was in the fifties that Canada began to interact in an official way with other countries with which it had been trading in the past, mostly under the colonial system that we were under at that time. Investment agreements began to be made in the 1950s. Up to now, as I understand it, there are 54 bilateral investment agreements that exist between Canada and other countries. Around the world there are 1,600 bilateral investment agreements.

The intent of the multilateral agreement on investment is very simple. It is to allow more countries to sing out of the same hymn book. Ultimately our hope is that once that framework is established the World Trade Organization, which represents 132 countries, will see the wisdom of operating under a common framework.

Canada does all right because our biggest trading partner is the United States. We understand each other's society and so on and we try to treat each other, even though there are glitches from time to time, with some fairness. That trade can go on without an MAI and without more agreements, but as other countries in the world, which are impoverished, want to raise their standard of living and want to put an end to their poverty, certainly we find that having some common rules among those countries will help them and will help us.

I also should point out that I think we all recognize that closed governments do not do well in the global village. Closed governments are failing very badly. I give the example of North Korea, a totalitarian communist government that has put walls around itself and almost chooses not to communicate at all with the rest of the world. Starvation and impoverishment there are incredible, to the extent that South Korea, its arch enemy, is now sending aid to North Korea to try in its own way to help North Korea through these crisis times.

I would suggest, on the other hand, that open governments overall are gaining. They are gaining in wealth and in economic base. Therefore they have a better opportunity to look after the impoverishment which exists to some extent in every country in the world. It exists in Canada, in France, in Europe, in Asia and so on. We recognize that.

The answer is not simply to throw cash at the problem. The answer is to provide a common denominator and an economic foundation so that countries can prosper and do well. That is why we seek these agreements, so that the rules can be established and so that a Canadian company is not afraid to invest in another country.

I bring in the example of what happened with the Nova Scotia firm that went into partnership with Aeroflot and the Russian government in the building of a hotel last year. Conflict arose because there is no MAI with Russia. There is no bilateral agreement with Russia.

As a result those people were left in the jungle on their own and they ran into serious trouble. That is a terrible detriment to a company or a potential investor who wants to go into another country and establish themselves there and in so doing help the economy, help jobs and help the growth of that country.

This interaction is a positive thing for all of us. Globalization represents empowerment for all countries if they will simply take it on. I know there are fears. There are fears expressed about cultural intrusion and so on. Every country that has been negotiating in the MAI has its own set of reservations and its own set of concerns. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep the cultural debate right out of the agreement. We have said that. We have made it very clear. We have said that if some other countries insist on having it in their agreement we will have a country specific reservation. That is a bottom line. There is no big deal.

Over the 40 or so years that these agreements have been made no company has come in and taken over the policies of this country. No multilateral organization has overwhelmed Canada. If anyone wants to see an example of industry and large organizations having an influence on the policy of a country, we only have to go to Washington and see how that government works. The dollar a year men in with companies actually construct policy that favours those companies. That does not happen in Canada. It has not happened and it will not happen in Canada as long as the people of this country see that it does not.

Our exports have increased tremendously since we started having agreements. As a result jobs have increased as well. We want that to continue but we want it to continue for us which is selfish but generous. We want it to continue for every country in the world, all the people in the world and we are most anxious to use all the tools we have to get rid of poverty, child poverty particularly.