Réal Ménard

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

I am not saying this simply to get attention, I just think this might be my lucky day and that my luck will benefit poor communities.

Let me start off by saying that this bill is a concrete step against poverty. As MPs, we all know there is a direct link between poverty and access to credit.

In the United States, a country where, we must admit, capitalism and free enterprise are thriving, they have had since 1977, that is for the past three decades, the Community Reinvestment Act, which makes it compulsory for banks to invest in disadvantaged communities.

What is this all about? The six major chartered banks listed in schedule I of the Bank Act have the privilege to earn big profits using the money deposited by their clients. What we are asking for is some balance between the deposits they receive and the loans they make to the community.

We are not challenging the fact that banks are trying to make profits. If they make money by playing the bond market smartly or making a wise use of any other financial vehicle, we understand. What we do not understand is that in 1998 banks are no longer present in poor communities.

Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is a case in point. This once thriving blue collar community is now hurting. Elderly people there tell me that in the 1960s there were 10 banks in their community. I challenge you to guess how many there are today. There are two. That is what has to change.

The banks, which are making record profits, have entered the global market, with 40% of their assets coming from foreign investments at the present time. It is not right that banks are not present in communities needing their help.

In a community such as mine, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, housing is where banks could invest and get involved. Eighty-six per cent of my constituents rent their accommodation. The banks' requirements are such that it is extremely difficult for anyone wishing to buy property to get a loan. This must end.

In the United States, the equivalent of our superintendent of financial institutions tables an annual report in Congress on the efforts banks make in disadvantaged communities. This report looks at loans made for community development purposes, loans to small business and loans to individuals.

In the case of loans to individuals, there are figures for low, middle and high income earners, by urban census area.

Here is what I am asking of all parliamentarians today. At a time when the Bank Act is being debated, at a time when a five-year review is obligatory, at a time when the Minister of Finance has set up a task force, is it not incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to send a very clear message in the end to the effect that we want the philosophy behind the Community Reinvestment Act to be part of our concerns as parliamentarians?

This is not a partisan issue because, regardless of which side of the House we are on, there is always a need for banks to get involved in the community. The Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois each represent a part of this constituency. The same is true of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, not to mention the government party.

Why should banks get involved in their communities? The most obvious reason is of course that they can afford it. My bill does not call for this social involvement of banks across Canada to take a specific form. Within each of their communities, banks should work with industry, community groups, elected representatives, the bone and sinew of the community, to ensure that investments can be made which will benefit community development. That is the philosophy behind community reinvestment.

Let me remind you that, in 1992, banks made approximately $2 billion in profits. This year, profits will likely be closer to $8 billion. So, we are in a situation where, as I said, the effort asked of banks is not an unreasonable one.

Banks should get involved in their communities because they operate in an extremely sheltered environment. The socio-economic studies chair at UQAM reported that 90% of loans issued by banks are secured by one level of government or the other and that 92% of all banking activities in Canada are conducted by the six major schedule I chartered banks. In a word, banks make profits and operate in a sheltered and concentrated environment.

The good news for bank shareholders is that retained earnings are higher than they have ever been in recent years. The retained earnings of banks have grown by 18% per year. Few industries in our society can match that.

UQAM is a breeding ground of ideas, which has enlightened the Quebec society. A good friend of mine, whom I wish to mention in passing—his name is Dominic Peltier-Rivest—is a professor of economics at UQAM and he supports my bill, which is comforting to me. I would ask my colleagues to some enthusiasm about this.

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-289, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act (equity in community reinvestment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, you will understand that I have been waiting for this moment for a long time, since I introduced this bill in November. This is a somewhat special day, because it is also my birthday.

[Poverty, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 5.2 million Canadians live below the poverty line. There is a direct link between poverty and access to credit, along with bank investment in underprivileged communities. In the United States, the Community Reinvestment Act regulates bank operations in these underprivileged communities.

Tomorrow, a private member's bill will be tabled in the House, asking that the banks reinvest in the community. Does the government intend to support this legislation, which is meant as a concrete measure against poverty?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this money, which comes out of taxpayers' pockets, must be returned to those of us in the greatest difficulty.

Does the minister understand that he is not being asked to be generous, but to be compassionate, humane, and to compensate all hepatitis C victims by extending the agreement signed between the federal government and the provinces?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. He can say what he likes but everyone knows that the federal government has the means to compensate all hepatitis C victims and that the provinces do not.

Rather than making ill-advised decisions, such as the one to spend $750 million on submarines or fork out $2 billion for military equipment that does not even meet the army's requirements, what will it take for this minister to show some compassion and compensate all hepatitis C victims as the people of Quebec and of Canada are calling on him to do? The federal government should come up with the money.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to congratulate you on the daily improvement of your French. You know I am delighted to take part in the debate, because there is always a consensus in this House on matters of foreign policy.

I would remind those joining us of what we are debating this evening in the special debate, since the House does not usually sit beyond 7:30 p.m., and that is the need for Canada to continue its involvement in peacekeeping in Bosnia.

You will agree that looking back on this century's history, we will recall the Armenian genocide, the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and especially the heightened tension that led to the break up of the Republic of Yugoslavia. People in my generation, especially those who studied political science as I did, automatically associate Tito and Yugoslavia. There was a belief that the Yugoslavian model was a model of a revolving confederation, one that managed a potentially explosive balance of various national communities. Time has shown us that the Yugoslav model was very fragile indeed.

I would point out that the Bloc Quebecois, since its arrival in the House in October 1993, has always enthusiastically supported all peacekeeping operations—in Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and the Central African Republic.

We thought it was a generous way to deal with international relations, an alternative way to use our armed forces, where troops are sent as peacekeepers.

Of course, in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the situation was a bit different. Things started to escalate in 1992. First, we had UNPROFOR, then a stabilization force. It was only at the third level of operation, in 1995, that we sent peacekeepers over there.

Those who take an interest in foreign policy understand full well that Canada has some expertise in peacekeeping. Despite our sovereignist aspirations, we are very proud to remind people that Lester B. Pearson, a former leader of the Liberal Party who received the Nobel Peace Prize in the late 50s, was the first one to suggest, always under the auspices of the United Nations, that armed forces be deployed after a ceasefire has been reached in a region where tensions run high.

Among the people watching the debate tonight, some might wonder why a country like Canada, with no military engagement tradition, where military service is not compulsory, a country that was never directly involved in the war, that has no warring tradition, would take an interest in what is going on outside its borders?

When my constituents ask me that question, I simply give them the example of Bosnia-Hercegovina, a country that has produced, since the early 90s, 3.5 million refugees spread around the world. Of course, in an era of globalization, when refugees look for a new haven, when wars produce political refugees, it all has an impact on our nation.

It is countries such as Canada, France, Italy and Germany that have welcomed these political refugees. Our party believes that it is important to make an additional effort in terms of equipment, because, as you will remember, Canadians were mobilized from Europe and North America for the Sarajevo airlift. A Hercules was used to carry supplies. So, there was a Canadian contribution in terms of material, troops—about 1,300—and international assistance.

Since the early 90s, close to $80 million in taxpayers' money—because Canadians pay taxes and because the government and Parliament agreed to humanitarian assistance—was sent through CIDA and various international co-operation agencies.

If we needed an illustration of how fragile the situation really is in Bosnia, how things are not settled yet, how important it is for NATO to continue its efforts under the supervision of the United Nations, since this is what we are talking about, all we would have to remember is that since 1992, 50% of homes in Bosnia have been destroyed.

According to an assessment by the United Nations, it will take US$4 billion over the next few years to complete the construction and reconstruction of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

True, the peace is real, but it is fragile. It is fragile for a number of reasons. First of all, the Dayton accord, which was negotiated under the auspices of the Americans in Ohio, turned Bosnia-Hercegovina into a federated republic made up in fact of two states: Serbia and the Serbo-Croatian Republic. This unification has not been completed yet and they still need to establish national institutions.

Right now, there are a number of signs telling us, as foreign observers, that the peace, however real, is fragile.

I will give a few examples. First of all, of course, there are the Bosnian Croats. Although they openly, formally, officially and publicly supported the Dayton accords, they did so with this no doubt legitimate hope that could reach extreme proportions and threaten peace efforts.

The Bosnian Croats, who supported the Dayton accords, still dream, maybe somewhat secretly, of being reunited with Croatia. This shows just how fragile the peace is.

There is, of course,—as you know, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you are a keen and vigilant observer of the international scene,—the whole question of Kosovo. Kosovo is a republic of Serbia that was for a very long time an independent province and that unfortunately saw this status challenged to the point that the central government deployed troops there.

Kosovo is a hotbed of unrest, because 90% of the inhabitants are Albanians who understandably have more affinity with Albania than with the state to which they have been attached.

When all these factors are taken together, we are well advised, as parliamentarians, to seek an extension of the participation of NATO, under the auspices of the UN, with a high command. I believe that the NATO and UN mission is very clear. It is a preventive mission to ensure that the slightest potential for hostility is nipped in the bud.

The seeds of potential conflict must be suppressed in order to ensure that the situation that has prevailed since 1995 can become more permanent and that all those, such as Canada, Quebec, France and Italy, who believe in peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans for the end of the century, can continue to invest resources in international co-operation and humanitarian aid so that the experience of the former Yugoslavia will never be repeated.

[Housing Co-Operatives, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I participate in today's debate to urge the government to take steps to ensure the viability of housing co-operatives.

I want to thank my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party for giving us this opportunity to debate this issue.

I should remind the House that, in the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which I have been representing since 1993, there is a deeply rooted tradition of co-operative housing, with more than 2,000 units.

I think it is our duty as parliamentarians, as our colleague suggested, to outline the merits of co-operative housing. Co-op members are involved in their community. They are involved in a managerial capacity. Because they take their responsibilities, they look after the well-being of the co-op, and this can only reflect positively on the entire environment.

We cannot talk about co-ops, about ensuring their viability, by allocating the necessary resources so that 20, 30 or 35 years from now, co-ops are still a viable reality both in terms of upkeep and subsidized housing, without mentioning that the governments that have succeeded each other since 1992 have systematically withdrawn from the co-op program.

I think that the more militant among us, the staunchest advocates of social housing, will recall that when times were good, there were three separate federal programs under which housing could be built, operated and subsidized for members of a co-operative. But after 1992, the government, following the trend and figuring that subsidized housing should no longer be subsidized, cruelly withdrew from that area.

I want to point out that 29% of Canadian households with the greatest needs are found in Quebec, a province which has always been very supportive of co-ops. This means that, with 25% of the population and 19% of the funding for social housing, Quebec has more families in need of assistance for co-operative housing or any other form of social housing.

Unfortunately, in this case as in others, the list could be long. The Government of Quebec, the people of Quebec and the taxpayers of Quebec have not had the support they were entitled to expect.

It is important to say that the government announced a few months ago in the Speech from the Throne it wanted to withdraw and negotiate with the provinces the full transfer of all matters relating to public housing.

Sovereignist that I am, I would see this as a matter to celebrate, since the whole area of public housing is more a matter for the Government of Quebec and, to some degree, for municipal governments. There is, however, cause for concern, because the government wants to transfer, to all intents and purposes, nearly $2 billion.

Governments that signed agreements with the central government—including Saskatchewan, and I will come back to it, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories—signed at a loss. For negotiations to be fair and to make it worthwhile to the provinces to sign, there must be money to ensure the continued operation and upkeep of co-operatives.

The co-operative housing movement got started in the 1970s. We will therefore be looking at co-operative housing that will require important investments for maintenance, renovation and repair in the year 2000, 2005 or 2010.

What the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and its counterpart in Quebec are asking is not just that the federal government negotiate the transfer of responsibility with the provinces, but that it have the generosity, the conscience, to provide, in the negotiations to follow, for funds to be transferred as well, so that the provinces that become responsible for this co-operative housing are also given the money to maintain and repair it.

But the government opposite is short-sighted and lacking in vision, and governs by trying to offload its responsibilities onto the provinces. The $2 billion they are trying to negotiate will not be sufficient to allow us to plan long-term projects for the housing stock.

It is a strange thing. On the one hand, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, a fairly easy-going fellow, is not all that worked up about it. The Government of Quebec has broken off negotiations. The federal government is letting things drift along and, right now, there are no negotiations taking place between the Government of Quebec and the federal government.

Why are there no negotiations between these two levels of government? Because the offer on the table is unrealistic and ridiculously low, because there is no desire to right the historical wrong done to Quebec, which has, I would remind you, 29% of the neediest households within its borders. In the best years, it receives 19% of subsidies.

Of course the Société d'habitation du Québec and the minister responsible for housing in Quebec, Rémi Trudel, have calculated the shortfall the Government of Quebec has experienced in recent years by not receiving its fair share. The figure is in the millions.

It is our responsibility to remind the minister that he must give clear directives that negotiations with Quebec are to be resumed.

We are in favour of the Government of Quebec being able to regain control over this area of jurisdiction, like all governments wishing to do so, but not by selling out.

I wish to speak of a proposal to which my colleague has already alluded: an agency. Where social housing is concerned, there is already the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which administers a certain number of operating agreements in conjunction with the co-operatives.

It carries out real estate market studies. It carries out analyses and tries to understand the major trends in the housing market, not only construction, not only the private housing market, but also the co-op market.

The Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada, which is certainly the movement with the greatest expertise anywhere in Canada, has made a proposal, and I believe they wish to meet with the minister at the earliest possible opportunity. If adopted, their proposal would save billions of dollars, as it would make a community partner such as the federation the major administrator of operating agreements.

I believe that, where English Canada is concerned, this is a proposal worth considering. Once Quebec will have regained this responsibility, along with the related budgets, and once there can be a true housing policy—because the appropriate resources will be available—it will be up to the Quebec government to decide whether it wishes to have this type of partnership with a community agency such as the one that is proposed.

I will conclude by saying that, out of all the provinces, Quebec is the only one that allocated budgets for the maintenance of co-operative and social housing, and our province is also the only one that earmarked $40 million for development purposes. This shows the degree of support for the co-operative movement in Quebec, and I hope such support will continue in the future.

[Income Tax Act, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this lacks conviction.

Will the minister agree that the discrimination to which gays and lesbians are subject requires a review of all Canadian legislation containing a definition of spouse? Let us see some conviction, please.

[Income Tax Act, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the Income Tax Act was unconstitutional because it did not include gays and lesbians in its definition of spouse, thus denying them benefits to which they are entitled.

Will the minister immediately undertake to follow up on this ruling and amend the Income Tax Act, which is now unconstitutional according to the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling?

[Immigration, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not consider that a full investigation would be in order and should include the medical care provided to Mr. Mercedes upon his return home?