Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that at this hour of the morning we have reached a consensus about something I heard earlier from my colleagues. We seem to agree that this is indeed an important debate. This day is a happy one, because we have an opportunity to debate the issue in the House.
I must admit to the members that my happiness decreases sharply when I see what time it is: it is 1.25 a.m. It does not bother me to be debating at 1.25 a.m. The public seems to be saying to us that it is important. Yet we are having it in the evening. We are having it at night, and the impression is that we are trying to get rid of it, that it will be swept under the carpet and that what is said will not be given much weight, or something like that.
It is very sad to see the context in which this debate is taking place. It does not bother me one bit to get up in the middle of the night in order to come to debate something as important as this. I have wanted us to debate issues such as this one—economic integration—for a long time. I am not against it, far from it. However, I am suggesting that we do our job and really debate the issue.
What are we talking about today? We are talking about the summit of the Americas, the discussions on the free trade area of the Americas which will take place on April 20. For me, this is a very, very important date. In addition to being the date of the summit, it is the anniversary of a date on which I once took an enormous risk by trying to launch a public discussion of the potential impact of globalization and economic integration on society and democracy. Indeed, I took this chair that belongs to my fellow citizens of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, I brought it to them and I told them, “Listen, after two years in politics, I wonder about the power of this chair to reduce the disparity between rich and poor in the context of globalization”.
Initially, we had difficulty finding documentation on globalization. I do not claim to be the one who sparked the debate, but I think I became involved in a popular movement from which emerged a degree of concern that is still present and that will continue to be present on April 20 and 21. Unfortunately or fortunately, many people will descend on the streets of Quebec City.
I say unfortunately because of the potential for violence. I deplore any kind of violence that may erupt in connection with the demonstrations and other public gatherings that will be held. Violence is completely unacceptable and a threat to democracy. I will be joining the people who plan to take to the streets to voice their concerns or protest the lack of debate. I agree with them that there is a problem.
When I carried out my chair, I was hoping to generate some kind of debate. Moreover, 50,000 people signed a petition calling on members of parliament to examine these issues. It is the least we could have done, in my view. However, given the absence of debate and the presence of lack of communication, this is what happens.
Even if the proposed FTAA was a positive initiative, the average person in the street would not know if indeed it would benefit him or her because there has not been any kind of debate. Some discussions may have taken place, but there has been no societal debate. Thus it is extremely relevant that we debate this matter here this evening. As I said, I find it very regrettable that this debate must unfold in the wee hours of the morning, when the public and parliamentarians may not necessarily be listening.
I am not saying that I oppose everything that is happening. That is not at all the case. However, as I said, if we had had an opportunity to set eyes on the FTAA texts during the course of our discussions, and I am certain many people would like to get their hands on these documents, then people would have been able to give an informed opinion. This was not to be. All we have to go on are snippets of information.
During a recent visit to Chile, I had an opportunity to meet with the minister of international co-operation who informed me that he was doing a great deal of work parallel to this accord to ensure that the FTAA agreement would have positive spin-offs for the other countries of the Americas. So much the better.
As that issue is not a subject of debate, and we are not really sure what is being done around us, it is hard for me to go out and meet with the people of my riding and tell them not to worry, that everything is all right, that I think it is a good agreement. I do not know if I can go to the businesses in my riding and tell them it will be good for them. I do not know. This is what I criticize and this is why I will march peacefully in the street on April 21.
Next Sunday, there will be a teach-in on the free trade agreement of the Americas here in parliament. A people's committee is coming here, into parliament, to debate these issues. These people are so worried that they are prepared to practise civil disobedience. I do not want to say that I support them, but a member of the NDP and I opened parliament up because I believe these people deserve to be heard.
They have things to say and they are prepared to be run over in order to say what they have to say. It must be serious. There are all kinds of things we could discuss in this free trade agreement, in particular something like chapter 11. If I could see the texts I could perhaps say whether I think mistakes were made in the framework of the NAFTA text that should perhaps not be made again in the text of the FTAA, but I do not know. Therefore how can I judge? When in doubt, what is one to do? Go down and protest in the streets because we feel the process is undemocratic.
However, there are things that can be done. We, as members of parliament in this House, can act. Several people are sleeping, as it is more normal not to be in the House at this hour.
Still, as a parliamentarian, I think there are some interesting things being done. Some of the world's parliamentarians are saying: “Our role, as the people's representatives, is to do our job. We do not agree with what is happening. We have to express our views.”
Moreover, that is what led to the establishment of the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas, COPA, an inter-parliamentary association founded in Quebec City recently—one and a half years ago—when parliamentarians from throughout the Americas came together to discuss our problems, our issues and our shared concerns. It is a very good thing.
I feel that parliamentarism should go beyond borders and debate these questions more fully. It is urgent. Naturally, Canada answered the call of the COPA because, through it, it has a place among the countries that make up federations, and parliamentarians from the provinces are included. Recently, we had the inaugural meeting of the interparliamentary forum of the Americas here in Ottawa, which was attended by parliamentarians from every country. The provinces were excluded, but we will not dwell on that, that is not what matters.
Parliamentarians from throughout the Americas met in this House, and it was very rewarding to have the opportunity to dialogue with a parliamentarian from Honduras, with one from Chile, from Mexico, and from the United States. The participation of the United States was perhaps somewhat lacking, but after all we should focus on the end goal, not the current results. In any case, if there is one thing, I think, that must be done in the House, given the reality of continentalization and globalization, it is to leave this parliament to speak with fellow parliamentarians from the Americas and around the world.
Members of parliament will tell me, “Yes, but it is not that easy to travel, to meet, to get parliamentarians to move”. I came back from Chile last week. Travelling in the southern hemisphere requires a lot of energy.
What I proposed at the interparliamentary forum of the Americas pertained to technology, which is advancing at such a hellish pace. It is for this reason that I suggested that the technical secretariat of FIPA support the development of a virtual telecommunications mechanism that will allow parliamentarians to meet more frequently, by means of virtual meetings. I am being serious.
When I say frequently; perhaps once a week, like a national parliamentary committee of this parliament, which meets once a week in order to pursue debates, study issues and listen to the people. I think that we will now have to do this kind of work as parliamentarians.
Since the earth is a sphere and it is difficult to meet with a parliamentarian or groups on the other side of the world, I recommend that we adopt these instruments which would allow us, for example—I know that it is perhaps futuristic, but I have no trouble looking ahead to the future—to sit in a committee room here in parliament in Ottawa, where I would have the impression, not only the impression, it would be a reality, that my colleagues, parliamentarians from across the country, the continent and even the world, were present and that I could debate. We parliamentarians could work together and present a common front in the case of such matters as the Tobin tax.
I am a parliamentarian who favours a tax such as the Tobin tax. Of course, such a measure requires concerted action by all countries. Groups of parliamentarians could push for action simultaneously on the same issues, the environment, for example. In short, all cross-border issues could be debated seriously and frequently through such a process.
Do we have the technology do this now? Perhaps it is not quite perfected at this time, but I think that in five or ten years it will be there and we will be able to conduct what I call a virtual parliament that will have no borders and that will be able to meet frequently. That is something concrete for which we as parliamentarians must prepare.
We are experiencing a revolution in more ways than one. I think that the work of a parliamentarian must also go through a revolution and follow this path that opens onto the rest of the world. As I said just now, I am absolutely not against this type of globalization.
What I think we should aim for is globalization with a democratic face, in which wealth will be distributed and every human being will be able to achieve his or her potential.
Of course, if we want to set up a free trade area—and I want to stress that I do not oppose trade between countries—I have a small problem with the word free, because free trade in my opinion means a total absence of rules. If the economy is not bound by any rules, it is not, I am sorry to say, going to work. If we let the market alone dictate the political agenda of our societies, I have a problem with that. I believe that the economy should be subject to a minimum of controls—no, controls pure and simple.
We need environmental and social rules. We need to think about those who do not have ready access to the new economy. A number of challenges lie ahead. Of course, we can get discouraged and lament that the situation makes no sense. However, we can also roll up our sleeves, look for solutions and fight for a world or continent in keeping with our vision and values.
Basically, this is the message that I want to convey to you today and it comes from the heart. Over the course of the next month, things are likely to get rather intense. I am pleased that the summit is taking place in our backyard because it has generated a great deal of debate, notably among CEGEP and university students. Unfortunately, one phenomenon appears to pose a threat to democracy, namely the public's waning interest in politics. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am certain that members have observed the situation firsthand in their ridings.
Conversely, another phenomenon is emerging, namely a growing interest in all questions of this nature. We saw it in Seattle, in Prague, in Nice, in Washington and elsewhere. Concerns have been expressed and it is our job, not to reassure people, but rather to encourage and promote debate.
Increased trade and broader economic ties between nations may well result in a redistribution of wealth and I have no problem with this. If, after thoroughly analysing and debating the situation, we conclude that a particular course of action is warranted, then I do not have a problem with that either. I am quite receptive, provided of course that I am able to go to my constituents and explain to them how matters stand. However, I cannot do this now because I do not know how matters stand. Some discussion has of course been taking place here and there.
Once again, the minister for international co-operation said to me: “Stéphan, these negotiations cover more than just economic aspects; there is also the aspect of international co-operation, there are social, environmental and educational considerations.” The minister's approach is appropriate in some respects, in terms of access to education, which is the engine of development. There is worthwhile work being done.
Furthermore, she told me that the media, unfortunately, do not cover these things. Unfortunately, the media are attracted to what is sensational. This is perhaps a little sad. There is worthwhile work being done, I agree. However, if a person is not participating in the debate, or closely involved in all these things, it is difficult to be for or against. That is basically my point of view.
We recently learned that Quebec, which is hosting the summit, will not be able to address the participants unless it sponsors cocktail receptions, unless it is a summit sponsor. In that case, it is the people's elected representatives who have to pay for an admission ticket. In any event, as the Prime Minister said, this has absolutely no influence; let us hope not. However, if it does, I believe this is deplorable, especially when a nation like Quebec, which would like to be present at the negotiations, has to contemplate paying for access to all these people.
The same applies to me. I am an elected representative, and I would like to be able to tell my fellow citizens what is happening, tell them not to worry, that everything is fine, or that if something does go wrong I will be there to defend them.
My only option is to come here to express my views at 1.30 a.m. Will they be heard by the government party? Obviously, I may not allude to the number of members present in this House, and so I will not do so. Suffice it to say that I am certain my comments will not be heard by as many as I had hoped. That is all right, we will continue to do our work. We will continue to hold conferences, to encourage debate and to ensure that there is greater transparency and democracy.
I will continue to do my research on how we can adopt telecommunications instruments because I believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a job to do. Despite my criticism of this socioeconomic and political reality, I find it exciting to be involved in politics because of these challenges. It is very exciting: we are facing major challenges and it happens that we are among the parliamentarians of this era who will have to adapt to this new reality and play a greater role in these matters.
Unless the leaders of government continue to sweep us under the rug and tell us, “Get yourselves elected and come make nice little 1.30 speeches in the morning. You will be able to let off some steam and you will feel better”. But no, this does not help me to unwind; I will be going back to bed. Nonetheless, I will tell my fellow citizens, “We were able to debate the FTAA, but we debated it at 1.30 a.m.”
I don't want to seem disdainful of those who work nights; I raise my hat to them. I think we all need people who work at night. However, I do not think it will have the same impact at this time of night. Fortunately, there will be Hansard .
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the House, who always work at this time.
This basically concludes my comments. I would be pleased to answer any questions from colleagues who are still present and feel strongly about this issue.