Réal Ménard

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his opening remarks.

I would however like to ask him whether he does not feel it is appropriate to act somewhat the same way his party did when it was in government in 1992. As members will recall, a very important judgment was brought down, also by an Ontario court, in the Haig case. It declared the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional because it did not include sexual orientation among its prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The Minister of Justice of the day decided that the act would not only be binding, but would be binding across Canada. It is thanks to Kim Campbell, Prime Minister of Canada in 1992, that we have finally had to review the Canadian Human Rights Act and to provide additional protection relating to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to all employees under federal jurisdiction.

Does our colleague not believe that the government should follow Kim Campbell's example and decide not to appeal the decision, and to make this binding across Canada, immediately?

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be introducing a bill in the House in September that will give parliamentarians an opportunity to debate recognition of same sex spouses.

I hope that the Board of Internal Economy, the Reform Party, the government and all parties represented in the House will make this bill votable, because I will accept the result.

My colleague is right in saying that this debate should be held in the House. We must vote on an important matter such as this. I will exercise all the democratic latitude that there must be between parliamentarians in trying to persuade my Reform Party colleague that it is discriminatory not to recognize same sex spouses, and I remain optimistic that they will vote in favour of my bill.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it is important that there be a fair debate in the House and that the necessary time be taken to discuss recognition of same sex spouses.

I caution my colleague, however, not to evade the issue. During this debate, I call on my colleagues to rise and state whether or not they believe that two men or two women living together in a homosexual relationship should have the same benefits and the same obligations as partners in a heterosexual relationship, because that is what this is really all about.

Some members may have preferred that Parliament lead off the debate, but the judges have not erred in ruling, both in the Supreme Court and in lesser administrative tribunals, that there was discrimination.

I hope that our Reform Party colleagues will agree with us that there has been discrimination and send a clear signal to lawmakers. Legislation must be amended, and we should show how enlightened this Parliament is by voting unanimously in favour of recognizing same sex spouses.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate.

With this motion, the Reform Party is trying to emphasize two points. The first one is the need for Parliament to give directions concerning the legislation, since it is appropriate, before the laws are interpreted by the judiciary, to first have them debated in this House. We agree with this principle.

The second point in the Reformers' motion more accurately reflects their tradition as a homophobic group, since it is asking the government to appeal the Rosenberg decision. The Rosenberg decision was handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal in April of this year. It struck down a specific provision of the Income Tax Act because it did not include same sex spouses.

Those who were in the House in the last Parliament are very familiar with the Reform Party's closed-mindedness verging on dogmatism. They know that Reformers have a problem admitting that two men or two women could calmly and of their own free will decide to live together and enjoy the mutual benefits. In a context such as this, it is obviously discriminatory to deny homosexuals the benefits accorded heterosexuals.

It is true that we would like the members of this House to make known their views on recognition of same sex spouses. They will have an opportunity to do so, because I intend to introduce a bill in the House in September. I hope that the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party will agree to make this bill votable and that all members may express their views on this important topic.

It is a question of ending the discrimination to which homosexuals are subjected and recognize that two men or two women can constitute a couple and that the government must pay them the same benefits and allow them the same rights and obligations as heterosexual partners.

What is the essence of the Rosenberg ruling? Ms. Rosenberg and Ms. Evans were members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and were living in a homosexual relationship. They took their case to court. The union asked Revenue Canada, which administers the Income Tax Act, to recognize their pension plan. The reason we are discussing the Rosenberg decision today is that the Canadian Union of Public Employees felt that Revenue Canada had acted in a discriminatory manner by not agreeing to recognize a pension plan which should be, because the Income Tax Act does not recognize same sex spouses.

What did the Ontario Court of Appeal say? It said that it was indeed discriminatory and that paragraph 252(4) of the Income Tax Act should be read as explicitly referring to same sex spouses.

What is still more interesting where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is concerned, is that there is a possibility for the legislator, as for the courts, to restrict certain freedoms. This possibility open to the legislator and to the courts to restrict certain freedoms is covered under article 1.

I would like to share with you the Ontario Appeal Court's conclusion on article 1 as it applied to the Income Tax Act in the Rosenberg case. It is most eloquent, and to my mind the most interesting part of the decision.

It states “Aging and retirement are not unique to heterosexuals”. Who could deny that homosexuals also age and that this is a law of nature, something that is inevitable, and not connected in any way with fortune, with religion, or with race. It says “Aging and retirement are not unique to heterosexuals—and there is nothing about being heterosexual that warrants the government's preferential attention to the possibility of economic insecurity. It cannot therefore be a pressing and substantial objective to single out for exclusive recognition, the income protection of those older Canadians with sexual preferences that are heterosexual.”

This is where the Reform Party will have to provide an explanation some day. When two men or two women work, make contributions, are consumers and taxpayers, where is the logic in a member rising in this House and not acknowledging, with the minimum of honesty one is entitled to expect of parliamentarians, that there is something discriminatory in this?

We must be clear about this. The matter of recognizing same sex spouses is not a question of being on the left or on the right politically.

I should point out that, in 1992, then Minister of Justice Kim Campbell decided, following another decision by an Ontario court, to recognize that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not acceptable. I am referring to the famous Haig case, which led to an amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This in turn enabled us, as parliamentarians, to pass Bill C-33, two years ago.

It must be recognized that two men, or two women, can have a satisfying, consensual relationship and still be consumers, active citizens involved in their community, and also pay union dues and fulfil all their obligations as members of the workforce. This is first and foremost a matter of non-discrimination.

Some day, the Reform Party will have to say whether it agrees that it is not acceptable for a state and a government to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It is well known that one does not choose to become a homosexual. It is not a matter of choice. I did not wake up some day asking to be a homosexual, and a heterosexual the next day. Homosexuality is based on desire, on what one is attracted to.

As long as the Reform Party continues to table homophobic motions that are unworthy of parliamentarians, what message does it send to the public? It sends the message that it does not recognize the reality of people who are engaged in homosexual common law relationships.

This is not to the Reformers' credit. To be sure, a debate must take place. Reformers are right when they say it is unacceptable in a democracy to leave it to judges to make the decisions. However, once a decision has been made, we cannot decide that it will not be binding, or that we will not comply with it. Because this is the first part of the Reform motion.

Could the Reform Party not give thought to what the various tribunals have said in the past ten years or so? Tribunals dealing with labour and health matters, administration and general law have found it to be discriminatory to deny same sex spouses the benefits accorded heterosexual spouses. This is discriminatory, because these people are taxpayers. They contribute through their taxes.

What I would really like is for the Reform Party to acknowledge once and for all that discrimination exists. Homosexuals are consumers and taxpayers too. When people have lived together for five, ten or fifteen years and one spouse dies and the other is not entitled to survivor benefits, nothing—no law, no moral precept, no principle of fairness—can justify the government, the legislator's denying these benefits to those who are entitled to them because they paid for them. The legislator should amend all the laws, not just the Income Tax Act.

When I introduced my bill in 1994, I looked at all the laws containing a definition of spouse. There were some 70 of them. This debate is inevitable, and I say to the Reformers that recognition of same sex spouses is inevitable.

[Human Rights, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, EGALE, a group promoting equality for gays, lesbians and bisexuals, is undertaking a survey on the condition of homosexuals among over 40,000 Canadians.

No one can dispute that lesbians, gays and bisexuals live unique experiences and share particular problems. This survey is the first systematic attempt to collect scientific data that should give us a better knowledge of these communities across the country.

Through this survey, participants are being asked to take action for equality, tolerance, openmindedness and mutual respect.

To conduct the survey, EGALE obtained the co-operation of the Department of Justice and the Canadian Human Rights Commission and two of is prominent analysts, Stephen Samis and Sandra Goundry.

I wish them well and at the same time I invite Canadians to contribute to the success of this operation.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I knew that if I persisted you would recognize me.

I have two short questions. I urge the parliamentary secretary to listen to the first one. I would like my colleague to provide us with some information. Is it true that there is an argument between Canada and Quebec as to whether this government, the government of which the parliamentary secretary is a member, owes Quebec the considerable sum of $77 million, which is not peanuts, considering that we are administering this part of the Young Offenders Act ourselves and that it is modeled on Quebec's approach? I am sure he will have much to say on this topic.

The second question is of more general interest. Could he bring us up to date on hostels—

[Immigration, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is what is needed, more complete answers.

Does the minister intend to take steps to end this discrimination, which limits opportunities for Canadian baseball players to play professionally, as soon as possible?

[Immigration, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

A protectionist American law restricts the hiring of foreign players by any major baseball team by limiting to 50 the number of work permits for non-American players coming up through their minor league system. A perverse consequence of this legislation is that Canadian baseball players need an American work permit to play with the Ottawa Lynx.

Does the minister think it is right that a protectionist American law should also apply in Canada and prevent Canadian players from playing baseball in their own country?

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

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.

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Also, the socio-economics studies chair at UQAM has revealed, along with banking specialist professor Bernard Élie in his latest book, available from the Presses de l'Université de Montréal for the modest sum of $28, that the banks are getting rich off people's savings.

Every day in Canada, 2.5 million transaction slips are churned out by automatic tellers, and the banks get 50 cents for each transaction. Imagine, a person cannot even take money out of his own account, his own independent income, without the banks charging for the transaction.

It cannot be repeated enough, we parliamentarians must tell the financial institutions, the chartered banks, that they have to get involved in disadvantaged communities, that they have to do so because they can afford to, and because they receive a lot from the community by virtue of their protected situation, so it is the least they can do.

To give some examples, once again in the United States, the Community Reinvestment Act has been in force since 1977 and so we can see what the effects of such an arrangement can be. I do not want to talk about coercion here, we do not see a bill of this kind as compulsion. It is a bill that will clarify the framework within which the banks can act in order to get involved in their community.

As you know, in recent years the Hispano-American community and the Afro-American community have seen their access to credit improve by 30%. That is, of course, understandable. When a bank is in a predominantly black community, efforts will be expended to ensure that this community has access to personal loans and to mortgage money. This is possible because there is an evaluation of banking business. Bank involvement is assessed. The monitoring agency makes reports and the consumers and American consumer groups follow those reports.

The following are a few examples. In some American states, there are special accounts just for people who write a limited number of cheques. Some states have said that, in the spirit of the Community Investment Act, a certain number of free cheques will be allowed. The banking institution will process a certain number of cheques without a service charge.

I will quote an example from New York State. As the member for Quebec, who has always been sensitive to these issues, knows, some communities passed rules making it impossible to freeze a client's account for more than two banking days. This is something important which comes from the Community Reinvestment Act.

More important yet, as I was saying earlier, in an area like Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, 86% of the population lives in rental accommodation. If we do not help them a bit, and God knows banks are not easy to deal with in that respect, they will never own a home.

Let me give you another example. In a number of American states, banks absorb part of the mortgage-related costs such as the appraisal, title search and credit rating costs.

You will no doubt agree with me, Madam Speaker, that all this is very reasonable. There is nothing outlandish about this. There is nothing in the examples I just gave that is not consistent with what banks are all about.

Is there anybody in this House who believes that, if we leave the banks to their own devices, they will voluntarily invest in disadvantaged communities? Certainly not. As law-makers, we must send them a very clear message and tell them exactly what we expect of them, regardless of our political affiliation. Whether we belong to the government, the NDP—of course, much to its credit, the NDP has a long history of social action—the Reform Party or the Conservative Party, we must tell banks now that we will no longer tolerate their being absent from large communities.

I recently gave a press conference with the bishop of Rimouski. He is highly respected in his community; he received a classical education and he is an extremely sensitive man. He told me that, just as in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, banks have deserted his community. I have to say it, I want this to be very clear, it is the main thrust of the bill before us today.

For the rest, I can only hope. This bill is very close to my heart. I want to get this thing going because I know that several other parliamentarians are sensitive to this problem. I want to use my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi as an example, because he has also introduced a bill to better control bank fees, to ensure that banks will have to appear before a committee to explain any fee increases and also to establish the appropriate regulations. I raise that point because there are obviously, in every political party, members who could work on this in a non-partisan caucus.

Imagine for a minute how strong we would be in this House if we were to decide to review the Bank Act and address the issue of the operations of the banks and our expectations in this area in a non-partisan way. We would work as parliamentarians in a non-partisan caucus, where all members who are concerned about this issue would represent their parties and give their best for greater social justice.

I see that my time is running out. I just want to stress that this is a very important bill for me and I am very proud of it. I am also extremely moved by all the support my caucus colleagues gave me. As far as I am concerned, this battle will be over only when this bill is passed.