Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rosemont.
I am very pleased to take the floor today in support on my party's motion. If members read the motion carefully, they will realize that it raises fundamental questions.
As elected representatives, parliamentarians and democrats, it is our duty to deal very seriously with fundamental issues such as poverty, precisely because of the global phenomenon of the gap between rich and poor that is growing wider and wider despite the prosperity Canada and many countries are experiencing right now.
On the eve of a new millenium and in the context of market globalization, all these issues have become fundamental stakes in philosophical debates in our society and political life.
The issues and challenges which my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean raised on April 20 deserve more serious consideration. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is pursuing this debate today by calling on members of all stripes to discuss and find different approaches to these problems and to the changes flowing from globalization, a process that sometimes goes much too fast and creates problems such as greater social disparity.
Since it is very difficult to foresee with any degree of accuracy the impact of globalization, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the idea of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that we should strike a parliamentary committee.
It is important to have an in-depth discussion. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that this could help us better understand the impact of globalization.
The task my party and I are ready to undertake is not easy, but it is very exciting. Our whole society must rise to meet the challenge of globalization. As a responsible political party, the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to publicly launch this debate in the House of Commons.
Before going further, let us examine what globalization really means. How can it be defined? According to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, which brings together 182 members states, globalization is:
—the increasing economic interdependency of all the countries of the world, due to a rise in the volume and variety of cross-border goods and services transactions and in the international monetary flows as well as the accelerated and widespread use of technology.
Why have so many governments opened up, willingly or not, to the world economy? Because world trade can benefit all the countries that take part in it.
Hence, the countries are changing their economic practices and specializing in areas where, comparatively, they have an edge. They also trade with other countries, which increases their standard of living compared to the situation they would find themselves in if they had to produce all the products they need.
That being said, world trade often has a tremendous impact of the redistribution of income within a country, so that there could be winners and losers. In order to try to alleviate the problems associated with globalization, it is important to implement compensation and adjustment programs.
This is why it was agreed that a multilateral investment agreement should be negotiated under the auspices of the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Even though the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle behind the MAI, which is designed to clarify the rules in the area of investment, thereby promoting freer investments and freer trade in general, the agreement, in its present form, contains significant flaws that will have to be addressed if the government wants to have not only the support of the Bloc Quebecois, but also the support of Quebec.
As international cooperation critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I deplore the fact that the majority of countries, particularly developing countries, were excluded from the negotiations, which will end today, because they took place within the context of the OECD. It is unacceptable that only 29 member countries, the wealthiest in the world, can have their say and not the others.
The Bloc Quebecois would rather see these negotiations being pursued within the context of the World Trade Organization.
As of October 22, 1997, 132 countries were members of the WTO, and 34 countries and seven organizations had observer status. That means that a larger number of countries affected by such an agreement would have the opportunity to express their views about the agreement at the development stage.
It is obvious that the federal government, through the Minister for International Cooperation, seems more and more to enjoy thumbing its nose at developing countries and non- governmental organizations.
I want to warn the government opposite. The globalization of markets and the MAI will not solve every problem on the planet.
As a matter of fact, since the present government has taken office, we have been witnessing an important change not only in its attitude toward development assistance, but also in its attitude toward the role of the state with regard to world misery. The United Nations world report on human development says that inequalities are growing everywhere. While the poorest 20% of the population on the planet shared 2.3% of the world income in 1960, their share barely reaches 1.1% today.
Meanwhile, the wealthiest 20% of the population have become even wealthier. Their share went from 70% in 1960 to 86% today.
In Africa, incomes have dropped by 30% in just a few years. Some countries are becoming even poorer while others are slowly getting back on the road to economic growth. This slow change is very disturbing and is happening everywhere.
In 1989, there were 3.5 million people living in poverty in Canada. In 1995, this number went up to 5.1 million, a 45 % increase. During that same period, the number of poor children rose by 54 %, from 934,000 to 1,441,000 between 1989 and 1995.
In my riding alone, the Laurentides, soup kitchens, community groceries and other organizations of this type are mushrooming. I recently attended the opening of the Club des petits déjeuners, an organization that provides breakfasts for young children in schools in my riding, children who do not eat breakfast in the morning because their parents cannot afford it.
These associations are still necessary in my riding, which undoubtedly indicates an increasing level of poverty in my riding.
Considering these dismal statistics, how can we explain that Canada went from fifth to eleventh place among OECD countries for development aid expenses?
According to the United Nations, developed countries such as Canada should allocate at least 0.7 % of their gross national product to development aid. Since the fiscal year 1993-94, the federal government has literally axed the budget envelope for international assistance by taking more than $617 million out of it, which means that it allocates only 0.29 % of the gross national product to this purpose in 1997-98.
By acting in this way, Canada is evading its international responsibilities towards the poorest in the world and is doing nothing to reduce the gap between rich and poor countries.
The government could act otherwise, but it will not. It would rather spend millions of dollars, among other things, on buying new submarines.
In light of these facts, it is clear that, for the federal government, the problem is not one of means, but one of priorities.
The debate has now started and the federal government has the duty to seriously consider the Bloc Quebecois motion. This is for the well-being of the people of Quebec, of Canada and of the entire world.
