Debates of April 28th, 1998

Supply

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise with pride to speak on this motion. It is a very important motion. The whole question of the gap between the rich and the poor which we see increasing daily is very important.

I would like to comment on the remark made by the member which I agree with. Governments have to get their priorities straight if we are going to deal with this issue. Lots of times we see priorities being made and moneys being directed in the wrong direction.

I was also concerned about remarks made by the hon. member for Abitibi with respect to women being paid to stay at home. Unless I was misreading it, I got the impression that he felt it was exclusively women who would be working at home. I hasten to point out that today many men head single parent families. In two parent families many men choose to stay home to look after their children and to attend to the concerns of the home.

It is important that we speak about families and that we be careful that we do not discriminate against women with respect to roles and responsibilities in the family.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his support. I totally agree with him. We cannot discriminate. It is important for the women who choose to be at home. I think as many men as women are responsible for child care. I do not know why we would discriminate.

I again call for support. We are not asking for the moon. We simply want a parliamentary committee to look at this whole issue. It is good for all parties. It is non-partisan and it would serve the needs of this fine country they keep bragging about—Canada and its provinces.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to rise in this House after hearing such a disgraceful and demagogic speech from the hon. member for Abitibi, but I will still exercise my right to speak.

First of all, I would to point out that, last week, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean made quite an impression when he took his seat out of the House. He did so to stress the social inequities that keep increasing despite major improvements to our economic performance. He walked out with his chair to trigger a larger debate on what it means to sit in the House of Commons.

What political power can we use to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor? As elected representatives, are we not the first ones to be asked this question? Yes, I think so, which is why I am glad today to speak on the impact of the globalization of markets and the proliferation of international agreements on the sovereignty of states and, therefore, the real powers we as elected representatives have in this House.

We have to have this debate here, because it deals with an issue that directly concerns all of us. We are here to represent the people who have elected us democratically. Therefore, every time we lose some of our power, some of our authority as legislators, it reduces the ability of our fellow citizens to shape their collective future, according to their own values. This is why I support the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who wants to see this debate go beyond the walls of the House of Commons.

After I was elected to this House, it did not take long for me to notice how globalization has an enormous impact on the work we do here, in Ottawa. My colleagues have already talked about its impact on many major issues. There is certainly an area in which the effects of globalization on national democracies cannot be denied, namely the environment.

Indeed, through the past generations, the ability of the human race to modify the world ecosystem has increased dramatically. This is due to our exploding population and our rapid technological progress. For instance, economic activity throughout the word is more than 20 times what it was in 1900. Consequently, many human activities are exhausting the planet's non-renewable resources.

Every day, our excessive production and consumption cause the extinction of at least 100 different species of plants and animals. Needless to say, this worrisome problem goes beyond national borders. We must find ways to solve it that are as international as the nature of this challenge.

Every year, we dump in the atmosphere billions of tons of CO2, the product of our energy consumption, and we use over 40% of the planet's organic matter.

In one year we burn as much fossil fuel as the earth was able to produce in around one million years. Poverty and misery are still rampant around the world.

The city of Montreal, where I live, is more and more frequently smothered in smog. Many Montrealers are getting organized to find solutions to this problem which affects our quality of life, but they will not be able to do it alone because half of this pollution comes from our neighbours in Ontario and New England.

Still they refuse to be defeated by the scale of the problem. Together we must find solutions to meet the challenges we face due to the deterioration of our environment and the multiplication of substances dangerous to human health. To do so we cannot keep our eyes on the short term. What is needed is a fundamental change in the way we make decisions at every level of society.

We must start integrating environmental concerns in the everyday decisions we make as individuals, managers and lawmakers.

Let us not fool ourselves: the precarious condition of our environment is the result of nearly two centuries of abuse. There is no easy solution. We can expect more crises, more environmental accidents. What is needed is for the ecological balance, which has been gradually destroyed over the course of centuries, and particularly over the past century, to be restored.

This is a long term undertaking, which will require the commitment of each and every one of us, from the various governments down to the last individual and, above all, a serious response to the environmental challenge which will lay our present lifestyle open to question.

Indeed, the environmental issue is more than just pollution, the build-up of domestic and chemical waste or land use management. These are just symptoms of a larger problem, and that is mainly the way we approach our relationships, define our prosperity and select a lifestyle.

In this respect, we are witnessing a real revolution in attitudes. Recent polls, open-line programs, radio hot-lines and television reports all agree. My fellow citizens, and young people in particular, agree on the value they put on their quality of life as compared with the mere accumulation of consumer goods.

They choose health over the pursuit of economic expansion at all cost. These new values are priorities. They should be used as the basis for the political will to allocate sufficient resources to the preservation of our environment, which we all care about.

It is paradoxical that this government repeatedly drew upon this widely held public opinion to finally come up short in terms of a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and protect the collective scientific tools used to assess our environmental situation.

This government cannot be satisfied with reacting to environmental crises. Never has the government developed a long term action plan which takes into account the collective diversity of the territory for which it is responsible.

Never has the government seriously considered where it wanted to be in five, ten or more years from now. In order to have a political will, governments must be able to set out the goals they wish to achieve through the action they take. Unfortunately, for the moment, we have to express our concern about this government's lack of vision with regard to environmental issues in today's context.

Canada's failure in the area of greenhouse gases reduction says a lot about that. Only Quebec is on the way to meeting its international commitments in this regard. How can the federal government limit itself to feeble symbolic and optional measures to reach these ambitious targets when it is obvious they will lead nowhere unless they are accompanied by active measures and research budgets. It so happens the Liberal government, that claims to be concerned about the environment, has a budget for the reduction of greenhouse gases that is 10 times less per capita than that of our neighbours to the south.

Yet the situation is so alarming that many predict that environmental protection will become the main public concern in the near future.

However, during the same year, the same 150 countries that met in Kyoto, Japan, to agree on international targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases negotiated the multilateral agreement on investment, which is designed to reduce investment barriers.

These dual reduction targets are crucial to the preservation of our quality of life. But do the countries sitting at the table have the necessary powers to meet all these commitments? How can the globalization of markets affect our ability to respond to environmental threats? Which agreement will have precedence over the others in case of conflict? That question remains unanswered here, in Canada.

So far, the only general exception contained in the MAI relates to national security issues and law enforcement. There is no reference to important international agreements such as the Kyoto agreement or the Montreal protocol on CFCs. That is why, before giving our final approval for this agreement, we want the right of countries to take or maintain environmental protection measures to be explicitly preserved.

In conclusion, like all those around me in this House, I am concerned about the state of our society and our environment in the next 20 or 30 years. If we can agree on the principles of sustainable development that I just set out, we must promote these principles abroad both in trade and environmental negotiations. That is the role I have set for myself as elected representative of the people of Rosemont, and I will use all the means available to me to fulfil that role.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Rosemont, who made a very good speech. He started by saying I was a demagogue, an accusation I find strange and cannot accept.

I learned how to read when I was very young, and I did read in a major newspaper in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, on October 31, 1997, a report that said: The fight against poverty: Quebec gets a booby prize. The Quebec government was awarded this booby prize in Alma, during a citizens solidarity gala in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.

Other members chuckled at my remarks. I made the same speech in this House on June 3, 1993, and it was very well received by Conservative, NDP and Liberal members. I will give you the answer later on.

Here is my question: Does the hon. member for Rosemont think that the Quebec government will start fighting poverty in the Lac-Saint-Jean area because it got that booby prize? On June 3, 1993, when I made this same speech in the House, the Bloc Quebecois was not here.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we have to raise fundamental questions such as these today, it is perhaps because of the empty rhetoric we hear from my colleague opposite.

As far as poverty is concerned, the hon. member should know that his own government has made cuts and reduced transfer payments to the provinces. I think he could have seen the first moves in that direction.

I remember the Axworthy reform and various things that have happened and are due mostly to what this government has done or failed to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Vancouver East. I would ask her to keep it short.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very short. I would like to thank the hon. member for Rosemont for his comments. I think he drew a very good parallel between the state of our environment and the multilateral agreement on investment and globalization.

I would ask the member if he concurs that one of the real dangers of the MAI is that it will have a huge impact on developing countries and will, by increasing foreign investment and the power of multinational corporations, not only have an impact on deepening poverty in those countries, but will also have a huge impact on the physical environment because it will allow greater power to those corporations to plunder the natural resources not only of our country but also of those countries in the developing world. That is one of the real intents of the agreement that is being negotiated by the wealthiest nations of the world.

I would ask the member if he would agree that is one of the dangers of the agreement.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I believe the Multilateral Agreement on Investment will fundamentally change the picture. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has expressed several concerns about this agreement as regards cultural, social, labour and environmental issues.

I think we have to listen to the requests made by the different interest groups. There is indeed a risk in lowering environmental standards on the national level and also in Quebec. We must ensure that this opening of markets will not have the effect of reducing the quality of our environment.

I think that, to this end, we must ensure there is a good debate in this House, instead of listening to the member opposite, who has been uttering platitudes from the start.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that I have been saying all kinds of platitudes, but I will ask him a good question.

We know that, in February, the member for Rosemont received a salary raise under Standing Order 67 of the House of Commons. If he wants to help reduce poverty as he claims, did he refuse this raise?

I have the honour of telling the member for Rosemont that I refused that raise. This is in the records of the House of Commons. The money I refused will go toward paying the public debt. Did he do the same thing? Shame.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would ask hon. members to address each other through the Chair.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is confusing the debates.

The important thing to consider is what leeway his government and other countries are able to give their citizens to improve their situation. The issue is not to draw conclusions.

The important thing is to give citizens room to maneuver so they can improve their situation, instead of throwing stones at everyone in this House.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance for Canada to meet the challenges of globalization. Our country is well known for its active participation and for the leadership it has often displayed in the development of an international trade system.

Canada's vitality is quite impressive. Our country is among those that rely the most on foreign trade. Indeed, foreign trade accounts for more than 40% of our gross domestic product, the highest percentage among all G-7 members. Our favourable trade balance increased from $7 billion in 1991 to $41 billion in 1996. The total value for Canadian exports of goods and services was a record $280 billion in 1996, almost twice as much as in 1989.

Through its trade policy, Canada seeks to promote the constant improvement of the quality, accuracy and scope of international rules on trade and investment.

Over the past 50 years, our country has been a leader in the development of rules for international trade. We contributed to the establishment of GATT, in 1947, and to the gradual improvement of these rules during successive negotiations rounds that led to the Uruguay Round, in 1994. Canada can be proud of the rules that now exist under the World Trade Organization for goods and services.

It is only natural that we would support changes to include something as critical as international investment. In the current context of globalization, direct foreign investment goes hand in hand with trade. The two cannot be dissociated.

The government's role in developing trade is to support Canada's businesses in such a way as to maximize their chance of success in foreign markets and thus to help create and maintain jobs everywhere in Canada.

For Canadians, there has never been a better time for exports and for taking advantage of international investment opportunities. Markets are opening up, trade barriers are dropping, and goods and services are moving freely between countries.

Foreign investment in Canada triggers employment and growth. Too often, too much attention is paid to the heavy impact of direct foreign investment on Canadian employment and prosperity. Three out of ten jobs in Canada are directly or indirectly linked to direct foreign investment in Canada. More than 50% of exports and 75% of manufactured exports are directly linked to direct foreign investment in Canada.

Every $1 billion in investments contributes to the creation of over 45,000 jobs over five years.

Direct foreign investments bring new technologies to Canada and bring new production processes on line more quickly. New technologies make it possible for Canadian businesses to maintain or even increase their competitive edge, both in world and domestic markets.

Finally, the liberalization of financial markets and the relaxation of restrictions on foreign investment no doubt explain the remarkable vigour of Canadian direct investment abroad in the 1980s.

This investment provides an increasingly vital contribution to our economic prosperity. Since 1996, the value of Canadian direct investment abroad has surpassed the value of foreign direct investment in Canada.

Canadian direct investment abroad has tripled since 1986, reaching a figure of $194 billion in 1997. The growth of this investment also reflects a new approach to emerging economies.

These investments are a source of substantial revenues and dividends for Canadians and allow our businesses to compete internationally. Canadian investment abroad produces benefits at home for research and development activities, growth and export opportunities, thus creating jobs in Canada.

By investing their own resources in target countries, Canadian companies are displaying confidence and thus positioning themselves favourably to take advantage of potential trade opportunities.

An increasing number of Canadian competitors are very actively promoting and expanding their businesses worldwide.

Canada would like a set of internationally accepted rules on foreign investment, just as there are rules on foreign trade.

Our objective is very clear. The Government of Canada wants to conclude a good deal at the right moment. We do not want to sign just anything at any old time. Therefore, if OECD countries reach an agreement that serves the interests and respects the values of Canadians, in keeping with our specificities and the exceptions we put forward, we believe such and agreement would be beneficial to Canada. But our commitment goes further than that. Our government has been consulting Canadians since the negotiations started and will continue to do so.

We have consulted the provinces, the NGOs, and of course Parliament. In this regard, I will remind members of the House of Commons that last November, at the request of the Minister of International Trade, the Sub-committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade held public hearings on the MAI. In December, the committee tabled its report with as its main recommendation that we continue to participate in the MAI negotiations.

The Bloc Quebecois concurred in the report. Last week the government tabled its response to the report. In short, the government accepts all 17 recommendations. At the recent annual meeting of OECD ministers, the Minister of International Trade unequivocally restated Canada's basic position in these negotiations. The ministers agreed to keep on negotiating without setting any specific deadlines. This is in keeping with Canada's position to take the time to negotiate the best possible agreement.

The government will keep on consulting as many groups as possible to ensure that Canada's positions reflect the interests of all Canadians.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly nice to hear a Liberal making sense, after what we heard earlier, and I would like to congratulate the member.

We cannot agree with everything that was said because, for one thing, it was a bit general. At least it made sense. There was a beginning, an end and a middle to this speech. I would like to congratulate the member. There are perhaps other Liberal colleagues who could take lessons on speech-making, or at least read this one to learn a few things. It might be instructive.

Now that we have listened to our colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, expressing his agreement with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the rate of growth, our Canadian businesses, which are flourishing all over the place, and telling us how everything is just peachy and how everyone is so nice and so wonderful, I think we have to be honest and admit that there are a few problems somewhere.

Since the Liberals have been in office, the figures show that child poverty, and the poverty of families by extension, has increased.

The question is not who are the bad guys and who are the good. The question is whether there is not some way to create a special parliamentary committee to discuss in as non-partisan a way as possible, even if it is difficult—my colleague said so—the problem of the gap between rich and poor.

I have a question for my colleague, the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard, if I can be heard over the inanities of the member for Abitibi, whom it is my misfortune to also have to call a colleague, and who may have learned to read when he was young, but picked up nothing in the manners department.

You would have had trouble learning to do two things at the same time, at the rate you are going. One day, maybe.

My question to the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard is this. Why are you opposed to the Bloc Quebecois motion? And I ask you to put it in your own words. What is it you do not agree with?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard responds, I ask members to direct their questions to each other through the Chair and we will get through the day.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Repentigny. I am sure he does not want to involve me in his argument with my colleague from Abitibi.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for Repentigny that the government has already started to fight poverty. If you had gone through the previous budgets brought down by the government, you would have noticed that the first step to take is to reduce the deficit, which is what the current government has done.

But even in its attempt to reduce the deficit, the government decided to start by helping the poorest of the poor, the unborn child. In our minds, poverty starts with pregnant women who do not have the means or the money to eat three meals a day. We started by creating a fund to help those mothers. That was a start. It is very interesting to note that, for young people living in poverty, the first years are the most crucial.

The first thing we did was to help pregnant women to ensure that their children, the future generation of Canadians, were born healthy.

Then, in the last budget brought down by the government, you must have noticed that we have taxable and non-taxable benefits that are handed out to the poorest members of our society. Unlike the Reform Party, which wants to reduce taxes for everyone, our government has decided to help out the most needy, the poorest of the families.

In a family earning $20,000 or less, the mother would get $1,600 for her first child and $1,400 for her second child, for a total of $3,000 or 15% of her family budget.

We have chosen to fight poverty by helping out the poorest members of our society, which we did in the last budget. We had set aside $850 million for 1998, and we will add $425 million for 1999 and another $425 million for the year 2000.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his wise, logical and factual speech. It contained a lot of good points.

I simply want to remind the House that, if we really want to examine the issue of globalization and its benefits, we need only ask people in Malaysia, Indonesia and India what they think about it. They can tell us clearly that globalization helped not only the people of these countries in general, but also their economy.

I would ask my colleague if he could give us other examples where globalization has helped people all over the world.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

What is important is not really the word “globalization”, but the fact that, for a country like Canada, it means an increase in our exports.

One must not forget that here, in Canada, almost one job out of two is related to the export trade, especially in the province of Quebec.

Therefore, for us, globalization means access to various markets. When we finally have access to these markets, jobs will be created in Canada. Then the government will be in a better position to give more money to CIDA and to help other countries in the world. I think it is very important.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for his reply to my question as to why he was opposed to our motion. When he said that the Liberals had solved all the problems, I was somewhat satisfied but nevertheless surprised.

If I am not mistaken, the Liberals have been in office for five years. This is not a question for the hon. member, because I have the answer. Statistics show that since 1993, when the Liberals took office, the number of children living in poverty rose by 100,000, from 1.4 million to 1.5 million.

Given the hon. member's reply, are we to understand that, during the first four years, the Liberals merely looked at the situation and only took action last year? Were they inactive during four years and active during one year?

Also, does this mean we no longer have to raise this issue because it is solved? What we are saying is if the issue is not solved, we simply want to discuss it with representatives from the various parties and with Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Repentigny for his question.

When I looked at the wording of the Bloc Quebecois' motion today, I asked myself a question. The Liberal Party of Canada held its convention last March, here in the national capital, and there were observers from the other political parties, including two from the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois must have looked at the priority resolutions passed by the Liberal Party of Canada. One priority resolution was from Quebec and I will be pleased to send it to the hon. member. That resolution dealt with the issue of poverty.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

It is with pleasure that I rise today to support the motion of the member of the Bloc Quebecois. The motion put forward today is a very good one. It shows very clearly the links between growing poverty in Canada and globally and the phenomenon of globalization now characterized through the multilateral agreement on investment. This is an important motion because these are two key issues that face the country, both of which emanate from policies that have been adopted by the Liberal government.

We have heard many times in the House that the Liberal government is tackling the issue of poverty. When we look at the evidence and what has happened not just in the House of Commons but in terms of government policies since the resolution was passed unanimously in 1989, we begin to see the real picture that emerges is of government policies that have systematically oppressed and increased the number of poor families, of unemployed people and of people living under the poverty line in Canada.

Since 1989 the number of children living in poverty has grown by 538,000. That is a shocking number. The number of food banks has tripled. The number of poor children has grown by 47%. The number of low income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than in 1989 when the resolution was passed.

The reasons for the growing inequality are very clear. The blame lies at the feet of the government that has adopted a corporate agenda of massive cutbacks to our social programs and $700 billion in cuts to transfer payments that have harmed the people of Canada, particularly low income Canadians who depend on transfers and social programs in terms of health care, education and social welfare.

We have seen the Liberal government refuse in the House to fully index the child tax benefit.

This is yet another reason for growing inequality in Canada. We have seen the gutting of our UI program. Whereas 80% of the unemployed workers who have paid into the program used to collect benefits, it is now down to a measly 30% or a little more.

We have also seen the gutting of our federal housing program. Is it any wonder we have growing poverty and growing inequality since the federal government abandoned social housing in 1993?

In my own province of British Columbia the loss of federal dollars for social housing alone has meant a decline of 8,000 units that would have been built had the program continued. To families where housing is a key determinant of health and well-being that means many more singles, couples and children are living in very substandard housing as a result of government policy.

If we want to look at the living standards in Canada, it is shocking to note that Canada is the only major industrialized country where living standards actually fell in the 1990s. Between 1989 and 1996 the average family income for Canadians, adjusted for inflation, fell by $2,300 or 3.9%. That can be compared to the average real income per person in the United States which grew by 6.2% or the real income per person which grew in western Europe by between 6% and 13% over the same period. That shows how drastic things are in the country.

This has meant that in 1996 the income of the poorest 20% of families in Canada fell by 3% because of lower earnings, cuts to UI and social assistance, but we have to point out that in 1996 the income of the most affluent 20% of families rose by 1.8%. Those statistics speak to the growing disparity and the growing inequality that face us.

Even the government admits things are failing. A huge government report conducted by an interdepartmental committee was comprised of 27 top civil servants in 1996 whose mandate was to identify pressure points facing the Canadian government over the next 10 years. This is what they said in their report:

—the primary obstacle standing in the way of a new national dream is a perception among many Canadians that Canada is no longer a land of opportunity—a society where they can realize their aspirations and be treated with dignity and fairness. Unhappily, much of the research done by federal departments over the past few years tends to confirm the existence of a growing class of (excluded people). It would appear that these trends will continue—

Even when the Minister of Human Resources Development was minister for international co-operation in 1996 he had this to say about globalization:

—the sunny promise of globalization has a dark side. They counterpoise a more integrated world economy and boundless prosperity against the risk that most of the world's people will fall by the wayside, impoverished and disgruntled spectators to the global revolution.

The federal government is not listening to its own Canadian Human Rights Commission which has pointed out that poverty is a human rights issue. Instead of addressing these issues the Liberal government has for three years worked in secret to defend the interest of the most powerful people in our society, those who own and control multinational corporations.

There is no question the MAI is a threat to our democracy. It will have a tremendous impact on our social policy and the ability of democratically elected government to formulate social policy in the public interest.

The government has failed on the score of poverty not only by going ahead and negotiating agreements like the MAI. It has also failed to deal with issues like bank mergers where we have seen profits of $7 billion and the concentration of corporate capital that does not serve the interest of Canadians.

In the B.C. legislature a couple of days ago a resolution was passed calling on the federal government to ensure that Canadian medicare and social services were fully excluded from the provisions of the MAI and calling on the Government of Canada not to sign the draft multilateral agreement on investment.

These issues are linked in terms of globalization and poverty because there is not a shred of evidence that the MAI will benefit Canadians. It will only benefit large corporations and will only increase growing inequality in Canada.

We call on the government to reverse its priorities, to stand up and acknowledge this is a wealthy country where wealth can be distributed so that the lowest income people of Canada can have better housing, health care, social programs and education. Those things can be realized if the priorities of this government are reversed and it stops defending the interests of those multinational corporations through the MAI.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie concerning globalization and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on his dedication to bring this very serious problem to the fore. Sometimes non conventional approaches must be taken to make oneself heard; there is nothing wrong with wrecking a little havoc to put an important message across.

The message the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean wants to send is indeed important. We are told that all G-7 nations are jealous of Canada's economic indicators, but that is to forget the cost attached to globalization.

I represent a part of the country where unemployment is frighteningly high. It is more than 22% in the Acadian peninsula. This is not just a figure, it represents entire families experiencing hardship because the economic market is impervious to human suffering. This 22% figure means that one out of every five people is looking for work but not finding any. This 22% figure reflects a kind of suffering that Canada should never tolerate.

We are living in a world in which multinationals have turned substantial profits in recent years. It is important to understand that I have nothing against companies turning a profit. It means jobs. But we must take a good look at the price to pay for this profit.

It is unacceptable for these profits to be made on the backs of workers. It is unacceptable for these profits to be used to fill someone's pockets when most Canadians cannot make ends meet. It is unacceptable that these profits are giving rise to poverty in a whole section of the population. It is unacceptable that these profits are being made at a cost to children, who are the most directly affected by this poverty. It is unacceptable that these profits are damaging society and not improving it.

Throughout the world people recognize the serious problems attached to the phenomenon of globalization. We recognize that the world market left to its own devices increases social inequality and sets countries on the road to ruin.

We talk about the race to the bottom. I do not know if we truly understand what it means. The race to the bottom means lower wages for workers. It means poor working conditions. It means that an employee cannot go to the bathroom because his supervisor controls his every move.

We must ensure that globalization benefits all Canadians. Why should company CEOs earn a million dollars in salaries when their employees are facing salary cuts or layoffs?

Over the past seven years, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. Let us take a look at General Motors as an example. CEOs' salaries increased by 250%. Employees' salaries increased by 33%, and 25% of jobs were cut. Why are the benefits not more equitably shared?

A balance should be struck so that the profits of one do not signal the misfortune of the other. Canadians want their government to assume its responsibilities and ensure that globalization serves democracy, equality and human aspirations.

We are living in a world that wants to transfer the balance of power from the hands of elected parliamentarians like us into the hands of multinational corporations.

A reminder to my colleagues in this House. We must not hand over all our powers to the multinationals, which are interested only in their own profits. Canadians will suffer the most if we do. Our constituents will suffer in the race for profits. They will be the victims of the growing inequality.

As parliamentarians, we have a lot to contribute to putting a stop to the ever growing inequality. Government can commit to setting objectives for the reduction of unemployment.

This growing inequality is the result of government policies that refuse to help Canadians when they are at their most vulnerable.

Thousands of Canadians today are jobless. However, 64% of them are not eligible for the benefits intended for them. This situation is even more ridiculous considering the fact that there is more than $20 billion in the employment insurance fund at this moment. The gap between the rich and the poor is due in part to the fact that the government refuses to take its responsibilities and to give workers the EI benefits they have paid for.

This Parliament can honour its 1989 commitment to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. That commitment was made thanks to the efforts of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. Is it not sad to realize that, ten years later, we are not any closer to the desired objective?

We can do what is fair and equitable. Let us work together to make sure that this growing inequality ceases immediately. Let us work together so that all Canadians can benefit from living in a fair and equitable country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Questions and comments. The member for Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.