Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify three points.
First, the government member who said that this legislation dates back to the 1970s probably does not know that the Clinton administration has updated the Community Reinvestment Act. The impact of this legislation and its underlying objectives are just as relevant today as they were when the bill was first passed in 1977.
Second, why was the electoral district used as unit of reference? Simply because it is the unit for which there was the most data available and because we thought, along with the drafters who worked on the bill, that it was an interesting unit of reference.
Now, if a member thinks that another unit of reference should have been used, in a democracy, the best way to counter an idea is to put forward a better one. I am very open to any kind of amendment that would improve this bill.
At the end of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to refer this bill to a parliamentary committee so that we can have a real debate on this issue.
I will not have unanimous consent. The four opposition parties, namely the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the Bloc, are willing to give it, but not the government. Do you know why the government is not willing to give its consent? Because this government is made up of hypocrites who speak from both sides of their mouths, particularly the House leader. They tell us that they support the philosophy behind the Community Reinvestment Act, but they back off when the time comes to engage into a real debate.
You know very well, Madam Speaker, that we have a problem with credit in Canada and in Quebec. The Liberals are hypocrites, particularly their House leader. They are just short of being liars.
What is unacceptable is that, yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and I came very close to an agreement with the government for the bill to be referred to a parliamentary committee, which is the minimum one can expect in a democracy. Today, the Liberals are opposed to that. Do you know why? Because none of them can rise and speak without his hands being tied by the banks.
If one of these members were to rise and say this is not true, I would be prepared to table in this House the banks' contributions to the political parties. You can see these people cannot be honest and upright. They cannot hope for a real debate and take a stand on behalf of the disadvantaged, as in the south centre, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and Winnipeg, because they have sold their souls. They are owned by the banks. I find the position of the House leader of this government insulting, disdainful and unparliamentary, as I do the remarks of the government members who just spoke.
We are nowhere near a real debate on the banks. I know we cannot count on the Liberals. What is interesting today is that the Reformers, the New Democrats and the Conservatives, with whom we do not agree on everything, as is to be expected, are giving their consent and are prepared to meet in committee and call witnesses in order to have a real debate.
I am sick at the thought of how hypocritical the Liberals are. Earlier, the deputy whip said to me “No, we will not support this bill”. They were prepared to give their support, yesterday, because they thought the Reformers would not.
I would like those watching this evening to know that the Liberals are deeply dishonest. They lack integrity. If people do not take to the streets, if there is no groundswell to force this government to assume its responsibilities, there will be no debate on the banks.
And what will happen. We will go on as before. How is it that, yesterday, the National Council of Welfare reminded us of the five million Canadians living in poverty, when in 1989 we passed a resolution to have all parties work to fight poverty?
Is there one member in this House who will rise? Is there one individual among the government members, with their stupid smiles, who will rise and say there is no relationship between poverty and access to credit? The Liberals make me sick, and I want people to know that they will never be honest with the banks, because of the funding they get. We know, we have the list. That is the distinction between democracy, between people who can stand up and speak honestly with their hands untied and the traditional parties that let themselves be bought by the banks.