Réal Ménard

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The Minister of Finance indicates that his government is preparing to sink its claws into the employment insurance fund surplus, and thus to divert billions of dollars from its intended purpose, which is to ensure earnings for those who lose their jobs.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if it is indeed his intention to table a motion suspending part of the legislation, the part concerning determination of the contribution rate, yes or no?

[Bank Act, June 12th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-428, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act (equity in community reinvestment).

Mr. Speaker, I again introduce a bill calling on the banks to invest in the community, that is, to strike a balance between deposits received and loans made, particularly for disadvantaged communities.

I am optimistic that I will have the support of all my colleagues in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Montreal Port Corporation, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, about 250 people living in some 40 residential properties located in an industrial area are dramatically deprived of any quality of life, because of the pollution generated by the operations of the port of Montreal. Consequently, these residents have been asking to be expropriated since 1986.

How does the Minister of Transport explain that the Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal earmarked the funds necessary to expropriate these people, but that the port of Montreal, which comes under the minister's authority, refuses to get involved financially?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my hon. colleague, I am reminded of this old Jesuit proverb “Those whose thinking lacks depth make up for it with length”. We have seen a lot of that today.

What I want to ask my hon. colleague, in a very friendly way, is this. Does he not think that, beyond the statement he made in this House in praise of the justice system, there are serious flaws in the Canadian judicial system, particularly with respect to human rights?

Does my hon. colleague agree with the Prime Minister, his government and party leader, who said earlier this week that one of the differences between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party was the fact that the Liberals were in favour of recognizing same sex couples while the Reformers took a more traditional view of the family? Does he agree with recognizing same sex couples, which is basically a human rights issue?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak when you are in the chair.

I thank my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. I am sure you will not mind my pointing out that he is certainly one of our more talented members. I think my colleagues would give him a boisterous round of approval.

Two points must be made. As the member for Beauce is apparently not up to it, I will make them myself. First, there is a concern that must be noted, and that is the concern over organized crime. We have spoken about this on several occasions. The member for Berthier—Montcalm pointed out how, somewhere around 1995—you were already in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker—we fought for anti-gang legislation.

We got it, not only because of our perseverance and our powers of persuasion in those days, but because we convinced the government that it was not possible for us to win this war without the help of lawmakers.

I will tell you one thing that could be done, and I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of this. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is a fairly neutral group—the member for Beauce will agree that we are not talking about a pocket of sovereignists or a breeding ground for indépendantistes—has asked the government to take one thousand dollar bills out of circulation because this denomination encourages money laundering and is obviously of no use to the average citizen.

If I did an informal survey and asked those hon. members who have $1,000 in their pockets to raise their hands, it seems to me I will find few Conservatives, no Bloc Quebecois members and probably no government members either.

All this to say that we made a very reasonable suggestion to the government to fight organized crime and the underworld, but the government did not act on it. I think the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who is quite familiar with this issue, will agree that there are no concrete measures.

Why should we agree—and this is the real issue—to support the budget proposed for a department that did not have the courage to take the necessary measures to fight organized crime?

I want to ask my nice, attractive colleague from Charlesbourg whether he agrees that the government could, among other things, have acted on the proposal made for the past two years by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and withdraw the $1,000 bank notes. If the hon. member has other ideas, I wonder if he could share them with us.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

On social conditions.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take a few moments to exchange views with my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, who I hear is very involved in the school elections, but we will have another chance to talk about that. I nonetheless wish her good luck on Sunday, because she could find it rough going.

Can the minister tell us a little about what her government plans to do with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act? I have its latest report here. I have always been extremely interested in the whole human rights issue, and we are urgently calling for an overhaul of the legislation.

This is a piece of legislation that has not been amended, except obviously for the addition of an 11th prohibited ground of discrimination last year. It cries out for an overhaul. Does the minister agree with those who think that poverty is a growing reality in Canada? Did members know that there have never been so many poor people in Canada? I can see, of course, that you are thinking that there is a direct link with the terrible cuts to transfers made by this government and you are not mistaken. The fact is that the income of approximately 40% of Canadians and Quebeckers is below the poverty line.

What connection does this have with the Canadian Human Rights Act? The connection is that we should give economic rights and that we should never allow discrimination based on social status. May I remind you that in France, the mother country of us all and the elder daughter of the Church, there is an obligation for the human rights commission to review all acts, and to advise on the impact legislation passed by the French government will have on poverty. Might I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary, whose sensitivity to this issue I am well aware of, whether she subscribes to such measures?

Second, does she acknowledge that her government is particularly clam-like, if not jellyfish-like, lacking in scope or ambition, when it comes to fighting organized crime? The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, a rising star in the Quebec firmament, has clearly pointed out to us that a meaningful policy against crime requires a number of significant measures that are lacking at present. Of course, there is all the business of money laundering.

I have no great expectations of the parliamentary secretary's answers to the questions, but if she would agree to cast a little light on this question, I would be grateful to her.

In closing, can she tell us who she plans to support in the school board elections coming up this Sunday, June 14, in Montreal?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Raise your hand.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will join with me in commenting on the eloquence of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, as he spoke with a depth one very rarely gets from that side of the House.

I would like to ask one question of my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. Can he tell us why it is important at this point in history and in the present situation with organized crime, to have MPs like those in the Bloc Quebecois able to stand up and propose concrete measures?

My colleague referred to money laundering. This is cause for great concern. I would like my colleague, with his knowledge in this area, to raise the awareness of others, the government members in particular, who are a bit slow to assimilate anything new.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I believe that our colleague from the Reform Party has, without meaning to, misled the House and taken some rather excessive liberties with the facts, when he calls upon us to understand that the decision, as drafted, raises the question of redefining the family.

I would ask him to show me where in the Rosenberg decision, brought down last April, as you know, he can see the definition of family being questioned. I believe that making such a statement here in the House of Commons, is not very responsible, and indicates a rather superficial understanding of what the decision is all about.

What the decision states is that it is discriminatory not to give survivors benefits to workers who have contributed and who should receive them under article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like my hon. colleague to indicate where in this decision, which I have before me, there is any cause for concern about a redefinition of family.