Mr. Speaker, last week, in an attempt to question the power of parliamentarians, I took my chair out of the House in order to trigger a public debate on the paradox that often emerges from the new economic context of globalization. This paradox is the gap between the rich and the poor that continues to widen despite the economic growth of recent years.
I also wanted to urge people in general to reflect on what is at stake in the new economic reality that is the globalization of markets. This will hopefully help to mobilize the people and force us, parliamentarians of all stripes, to come up with concrete measures to ensure everyone's well-being.
Recently, we saw how people can mobilize and come together on an issue. The Multilateral Investment Agreement was supposed to be ratified today by the 29 member states of the OECD. But after the citizens of several signatory states mobilized against it, the agreement is now being questioned.
This agreement, considered by some to be the constitution of the world economy, is only one aspect of the globalization phenomenon. When people mobilize, agreements can be thrown back into question even though their acceptance had been presented as being imperative and inevitable.
My action was very much inspired by this mobilization campaign, to show people that decisions affecting them directly are being made without meaningful consultation.
I wanted to bring people to take an interest in these decisions. My action obviously satisfied a need because people mobilized in great numbers. Today, I come to the House with the support of hundreds of people and organizations of all kinds from everywhere.
I think people want concrete solutions because they responded favourably to the message I wanted to send through my action, which, all in all, was provocative.
I think people are concerned about the growing gap between rich and poor in our society, particularly in the context of globalization.
I share their feeling. That is why I will consult with those who are interested in this debate so that people can express their concerns and suggest adequate solutions.
These consultations, whether they take the form of focus groups, informal coffee meetings or any other form, will have a dual objective: first, to foster a broad public debate and, second, to give us, as parliamentarians, effective tools to help us define the parameters for this new debate in our society.
I hope that, apart from these consultations, people will mobilize to sign the petition I am circulating, asking that a parliamentary committee be struck to examine our ability, as parliamentarians, to reduce the gap between rich and poor in the new context of market globalization and to suggest concrete solutions.
I would add that I have no doubt as to the people's approval. As I was saying earlier, the support I have received shows that a large percentage of the population believes in the urgency of such a debate. One of my objectives is to bring this petition to the House with 50,000 signatures on it, as a start.
I just mentioned two concrete objectives: involving people in this debate and making sure parliamentarians can find ways to solve the problem. This being said, for parliamentarians to find solutions, they have to know the kind of issues the committee will be called upon to review.
To this end, I suggest the committee should be asked to examine not only the impact of globalization, especially on parliamentarians' decisions, but also how to reconcile economic growth and social development in the context of international competition.
To learn more about international agencies, it might be helpful to examine their democratic legitimacy and understand fully the consequences of their various decisions on the manoeuvering room we, as parliamentarians, are trying to establish at the national level. Is there a need to reform these agencies, as several have suggested, in a way we would approve? We must look into it.
I believe it would be useful to further explore current social policies adopted by parliamentarians in other countries in the context of globalization and examine the inclusion of so-called social clauses in various international and multilateral agreements. I suggest we really have to take a serious look at this for the MAI. How could we establish a democratic and effective counterbalance that could be used to promote, protect and maintain social benefits in nation-states?
Across the world, suggestions and solutions are being put forward to counter the negative consequences of globalization, especially to adapt it to mankind instead of forcing mankind to adapt to it. In his last budget, the finance minister said that basic problems required basic solutions. I say that international problems require international solutions.
I guarantee that this committee would allow us, as members of Parliament, to be forward-thinking at the international level and find concrete solutions to the issue of the lack of power of our respective seats in the context of globalization.
To underscore and highlight the significance of this motion, I move the following amendment, seconded by the member for Richelieu:
That the motion be amended by adding the words “without delay” after the word “act”.
Moreover, to show people we, parliamentarians, are really serious about the issue of the gap between rich and poor, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.