Brian Masse

[Petitions, November 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition regarding border traffic in the city of Windsor. The petitioners request that there be some public participation in the meetings with the federal government to ensure that there is open transparency to the process. Hundreds of people have signed the petition on that particular subject matter.

[Points of Order, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly comment. I think we should get on with the debate. I think parliamentarians can add to at least the understanding and both sides can contribute to something about the whole public debate that is happening. The series of procedural tactics that have been happening here with people actually having to resort to dictionaries in terms of interpretations of specific words is what makes the public skeptical about the work that we are doing in the House.

I think of Mike Harris, for example, who read off all of the names of the lakes in Ontario to filibuster at one time. That just limits debate. I for one think we could probably add more to this public issue by participating with everyone else in the community. Going through the dictionary to interpret words is not helpful to Canadians.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of understanding; it is a question of believing in the government.

The auto industry continues to lose jobs and the future critical investment in this country is at risk. Labour, industry and 20-plus Ontario cities have repeatedly asked the industry minister to do something.

Will the minister come out of his slumber and finally work on a strategy to make Canada a leader in the development of environmentally sustainable technology for the auto industry? This will ensure we meet our Kyoto targets and defend our vital auto industry.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader pointed out that parliament cannot ratify the Kyoto accord and that only the government can do so.

It appears even he recognized that the Prime Minister's commitments in Johannesburg to have the Canadian parliament vote on ratification and statements in the Speech from the Throne to bring a resolution before the House this year are meaningless. Perhaps he could explain that to the Prime Minister.

Now that his government understands that, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us today in the House on what specific date his government will ratify the Kyoto accord?

[Housing, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Affordable Housing Day.

Since the government came to power we have seen a steady systematic dismantling of federally funded social housing programs. It is now to the point where the government has virtually removed itself from the business of supporting affordable housing.

Earlier this week we heard a lot of talk, with the release of the government's urban strategy, the so-called “Blueprint for Action”, about the need for a national housing program. I want to point out that the NDP and thousands of Canadians have been calling for such a program for years.

However, it was only talk because yesterday in the House, during the debate on Bill C-229, an act to amend the Bank Act, members of the government had the opportunity to stand up and be counted and they did not. What they did was they stood behind the banks and that is unfortunate because the U.S. has this legislation and it has increased its affordable housing.

The next time one of the Prime Minister's staff calls anyone in the U.S. a moron, maybe that person should consider reflecting on our own policy and direct that comment where it is more justly deserved.

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is pleasure to rise in the House to talk about this very important issue. I too want to clarify this. I do not think that the intent of the bill is to attack banks or their charitable donations in Canada. It is more a debate about commerce in our country, about where we are headed, and about financial institutions in general and what type of role they should play in dealing with some of the problems we have as a country right now. Banks can play a larger role. I think they could and I think it would be a good investment opportunity.

I also want to note that right now with regard to lending practices we know that some of the banks have actually had some very questionable business lending practices to larger corporations and larger institutions, which have actually affected their earnings and profits. They have not been the small guy, so to speak, that has been characterized in terms of this particular initiative.

We need to recognize that this is not just a rural issue. It is an urban issue too. It is a situation that has developed because we have seen banks leave the impoverished urban neighbourhoods. I can tell the House for a fact that in my riding bank mergers have had a direct impact on our urban setting. Because they have consolidated, we see empty storefronts and we have seen a lot of different planning go out the window. They have simply usurped the investment and made one or two choices available to consumers. That has had a detrimental impact, not only just on people's choices in terms of the type of service they receive, but also on the urban landscape they participate in as storefronts are closed. That consolidation also has had a positive impact, I guess, with the massive profits that the banks have been able to recoup through that business development plan, but at the same time there has been an incredible loss of employment.

There is one issue in this whole process about commerce that we do not often think about, which is Internet banking, and I will give a good example. Here is a situation that is really interesting. As a consumer, I have to purchase equipment. I pay for that equipment: the computer, the screen, the printer and all those different things. On top of that I pay a monthly service fee to use the Internet. I have to pay to use the access service of online banking. At the same time, I use my own personal time in that process to do the actual physical work. Here is what is ironic. The bank should be paying me for that investment, but I am paying the bank for that service. It is another service fee. At the same time, the bank lays off somebody. It ends up that I take somebody out of a job in my community and I pay for all the infrastructure to do it. I actually physically sit down and do the work.

The big winner in this situation is the bank and the big loser is the consumer and I think we have to recognize that. That is the bank's business plan and that is fine. It is up to the bank to be able to go through it, but we have to at least identify that it is a problem or at least a result of policy directives by the government.

I think there is a connection with regard to the lobbyist suggestion. We can look back in terms of when we had the bank merger. I just came from a discussion on Bill C-15, the new lobbyists bill. One of the expert witnesses identified that $30 million to $40 million was used by the banks to lobby during that process. That is a lot of money and a lot of investment in terms of the way the government goes about doing business. Putting forward this bill is a good attempt to address some of the crises that we have in our communities, and the banks do have a responsibility and a role to play. If they can spend $30 million to $40 million to lobby public policy, I do not think it is too onerous to have a good debate about it again.

With regard to the summary of the bill, to be specifically clear to constituents, the purpose of the bill is to achieve equity in community reinvestment by providing individuals and businesses with equitable access to credit, and to be very specific, where the unemployment rate is equal to or higher than the national average. That makes reasonable efforts to implement equity in community investments. That is important, because sometimes communities, rural or urban, ebb and flow with regard to a certain stage of development or their length of time as a community. Having banks doing commerce in those areas is very functional for business development.

Being a former member of the City Centre Business Association and Sandwich Business Improvement Association in Windsor, I can tell the House that banks are very important to the whole landscape of the economic development of that community. Their participation on a regular basis is very much appreciated. It is clearly an asset to attracting other businesses. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. We have seen that the closures and some of the consolidations have meant that there has been a price to pay in the general sense.

With regard to the community reinvestment act in the United States, I think there are some interesting points that we should discuss. Its purpose was to encourage federally chartered deposit taking institutions to grant loans to persons living in low and medium income neighbourhoods. It was really a tool to improve the access point for people who are generally denied mortgage loans. Its purpose was also to study mortgage loans granted under the CRA in order to determine their profitability. There is a monitoring process to ensure that there is a win-win situation and to support small lenders. We often talk about small businesses and their important role in the Canadian economy. This is absolutely magnificent. This is an element to be able to get entrepreneurs up and going and to at least give some access to people who would normally be denied the ability to participate or to chase down dreams, people who often become significant contributors in the larger sense as their companies grow.

There was a survey with regard to the American banking system. Six hundred institutions participated, with 98% of the respondents stating that loans granted under the CRA were profitable. That is a 98% return rate. Imagine if we actually got that in our other investments. That is a 2% failure rate. That is absolutely incredible, and we can calculate all the profits and all the improvements stemming from that.

In terms of the advantages that were perceived, respondents surveyed they said they had an improved corporate image in the community, so they are inclusive, they are building relationships, important and trusting relationships. Another advantage is the help for the community to develop and prosper, so there is a long term vision buy-in by the city. There is the creation of a client group for future products and services, so they are very much integrated.

With regard to the effects, what they found is that for Afro-Americans nationwide their actual mortgage loans shot up by 47.5%, so there was a positive correlation there to a situation that they wanted to improve. Mortgage loans granted to Hispanics leaped by 36%. Mortgage loans granted to low and medium income individuals rose by 22%. What is important to note is that in the version they have, there are different categories for the loans: less than $100,000; between $100,000 and $250,000; and over $250,000.

Can we imagine how we could tackle some of our crises in affordable housing with regard to this community if people were actually able to access those loans? In many communities, a loan of $100,000 can buy a home for a decent standard of living within which a family can grow and flourish. I think that is important because we know that we have an affordable housing crisis. We know it is not good for our economy. We know it is not good for Canada.

This is a tool that I think can be profitable for both the banks and the community. I think that is important to recognize. People have a better chance to participate and achieve in a world economy when they have a roof over their head and a sense of security and stability. It could also potentially lead into another boom with regard to housing and would continue a very strong market. I know that in my area we have had a successful housing boom, but it certainly would be nice to see the range around $100,000 or so take off as well. Affordable housing has not really taken off as it should and getting at those targeted individuals would certainly be a benefit.

With regard to whether this is too onerous for the banks or whether it is too costly or the regulations are going to burden them, I do not think that is the case, because we have to look at the fact that 60% of Canadian communities right now have one financial institution to serve them. There really is not a consumer choice there and that is not good. That is almost like a monopoly, because there is predominantly limited exposure for consumer choice. If consumers want to go to something like Internet banking if they are in a setting that only has one, once again, they have to pay for the equipment, pay for the service, pay to do the work and pay a fee. At the same time the bank gets all the rewards of the relationship. That is simply not acceptable in my opinion.

Yesterday, for example, the Royal Bank recorded profits yesterday that are 14% higher than profits in 2001. It reported $2.76 billion in sheer profit. How can that be a hardship? The TD Bank had a record of $2.96 billion at one point and $3 billion in profits. That is generally what is happening right now.

This is a very important bill. I think it is worth debating. What we are talking about is branches working toward equitable community reinvestment and getting branches to analyze their operations, systems and regulations and be inclusive in the community. There are a number of things that will happen after that. Representatives will start to get involved. There will be community capacity building, which will be very popular.

To indicate my sincerity with regard to the merits of this case, in Windsor West right now the unemployment rate falls below the national average. I could see the benefits of this but I would not necessarily receive them. I think all of Canada should look at this because we are certainly going to have some improvements.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.

With regard to the 60,000 people who have received the letter and have not replied, it is not surprising given the fact of the written format of a letter and the fact that there are many people with visual disabilities. They have difficulty with regular communication, be it the papers, be it written materials, and they certainly would have a problem with this type of communication element. I think it shows the lack of accessible programming in terms of sending out one form letter to people using a supplement or at least a tax benefit that offsets some of their incurred costs when there are other issues with regard to language, literacy and the ability to read. There are all those different things, so it is really not that surprising that 60,000 people have not responded.

As a former board member for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, I can say that a lot of people are shut out with regard to day to day communications that are in the general media or even generally in their community, be it in flyers and different materials of that nature.

Specifically with regard to the cost, it is certainly one that we would be better off putting toward the implementation of social programs or at least toward assisting in facilitating persons with disabilities to be more involved in the community and, more important, in being able to participate and fully function, as opposed to incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs. Those are the costs we are talking about in terms of the money to get this out through the letter system at a complete waste.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. First, when we talk about a humane and compassionate manner, let me say that persons with disabilities just want to be treated like anyone else. That is what they are really asking for. This $950 is to offset some of the additional challenges because of the barriers we in our society have created. We are the ones who created the extra barriers by not having accessible transportation, by not investing our public funds in it for so many years. We are the ones who have created architecture that is a barrier to people. That is what we are talking about: being able to eliminate those extra costs they incur on a regular basis.

With regard to the specific number in terms of walking, we should go about it in terms of whether walking is relatively impaired or whether there is difficulty from time to time. It does not have to be 50 metres. What it has to be, medically, is that they have difficulty with ambulatory transportation by themselves. I think that is the way that we should approach this issue. We do not have to look at 50, 51 or 49 metres. We should open that clause so that people who have a difficult time with ambulatory movement and have to use some of their income to purchase some offsetting means for it are the ones who receive the credit.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about the process and the way the government is going. I am not sure whether it is meanspirited, whether it is ignorant or whether a lot of people on the government side have not done their work and maybe will look at this matter, hear from the public and join us in opposition to this meanspirited attack.

A few moments ago a comment was made regarding whether we can make a visual judgment as to whether or not an individual is disabled. That is a lot of the problem. People are making assumptions. They are drawing conclusions. They have no knowledge or understanding of or respect for those individuals who have muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia, psychiatric disorders, cerebral palsy or AIDS. We cannot judge just by looking at them, and we should not be doing it anyway, but that is what we in the House are reduced to. That is the insinuation: that one can make a diagnosis on the spot as to whether a person should get money or not. We are talking about $950. It is $950 and we are talking about whether they should be taught self-reliance or self-respect.

I have news for members. The disabled population in Canada is overrepresented in terms of lower income and overrepresented in terms of unemployment. I can tell the House this because I spent seven years as a job developer for persons with physical disabilities and also for persons with developmental disabilities, at two fine organizations that were underfunded. We actually were able to save taxpayers money by helping people get off assistance by working part time or full time, but during that process those individuals incurred additional expenses. If they had to go to work and could not use public transit because it was not accessible, they had to take cabs. These people did not have timeframes that allowed them to use Handi-Transit or other types of accessible transportation systems that ran on a regular basis. They needed systems at alternative times, so they had to take cabs to get to and from work.

There are all kinds of personal support needs required as well and we are talking about $950. We are not talking about something that is a luxury for people. We are not talking about something they can claim because they went on a corporate golf outing or to a sporting event somewhere and were able to write it off. This is not a choice. It is not their choice to be disabled. This is something people have to deal with and we should be supporting them. It is not about making them feel that they have to be more self-reliant. They understand that. They do not want to be a burden to their community or to Canada. They want to contribute and participate.

The process we have gone through is clearly a mess. Anybody across the country who is watching this debate realizes that the comprehensive platforms or tax issues that have been put forth to persons with disabilities are barriers. This is not working for them. The application process is something else again. It is dehumanizing to these individuals to have to go to a doctor again and have him or her reaffirm that they are disabled. It is not something they want to do. They do not want to go back to their doctor to prove again that they are disabled.

I have a letter from one of my constituents, who states:

I have used a cane since I was 62. I have a damaged balance organ because I was given massive doses of Genomycin when I had a ruptured appendix. It made no difference that I used a cane or walker--as long as I could walk 50 metres, I was refused. Over the years I have also developed spinal stenosis and diabetes, which is treated with insulin and metformin. I am certainly much worse than I was 14 years ago.

This is somebody who was collecting the disability tax benefit when she was 62. She is now 76 and has been denied that tax benefit, so somehow age has improved her condition. I just cannot believe that.

In my excitement to get started, Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser. I apologize for not noting that at the beginning of my speech.

In general, we have to look at persons with disabilities in our society and this tax credit is something that could facilitate their inclusion. That is an improvement. The tax credit will provide people with the means to offset their actual incidentals so that they can be more involved in society, involved in employment and in social activities and all kinds of different things. That is why the tax credit is so important. It is a tool. It is a means necessary for them to be able to achieve some of their goals.

With regard to some other situations we have seen, I believe that is the reason why this has been an emotional debate in the House and I think it is one of the reasons why we have to look at this issue. The government has claimed to be opening the tax bracket for many other people, such as the capital gains tax. We heard a recent report involving the return of $1 billion to people because of capital gains tax differences and we are talking about $950 per person. That will not come anywhere near the billion dollars. What about the GST and not closing in those gaps? What about all the uncollected revenue because it chooses not to go after people? One could go on and on.

In the parliamentary subcommittee hearings that were reported in March, 2002, members were unanimous in what they recommended. They also showed a teamwork initiative that should be respected in the House. The amendments clearly defined that there was a participation point for persons with disabilities and one for the agencies that represented them. They said clearly that they wanted to have changes that were more inclusive and they did not want there to be a restrictive element, but that is what has happened.

My local constituency has been really affected by this. Petitions, forms and letters keep coming in on a daily basis. We get more and more examples.

Another gentleman came to see me just the other day and I talked to him. He has cerebral palsy. It is a lifetime condition. He has extreme difficulty with walking and a staff member saw it when he came into the office. His form mentioned the 50 metre rule in terms of the walking distance. On some days he is able to do it, but on most days he is not. The doctor is in a quandary in terms of whether he can or cannot walk 50 metres. Some doctors would say yes and when that happens, people would get disqualified. But it is not all the time, so how can they? Also, where does this 50 metres come from? Why is it not 49? Why not 51? Can anybody answer that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

This issue is something that is very important to Canadians in general and to society. A number of disabled persons have had challenges over the years. It is something we need to change. We need to be more inclusive. I know that a number of opposition backbenchers have been talking about the troubles that they have had with this in their local offices. There are 30,000 people who are affected by this right now. It is the unknown quantity, the unknown element,that makes it difficult. People are waiting for the shoe to drop, so to speak, with regard to their tax credit. When they have to reapply, it is an additional cost for them. It is also a gamble because if they do not get it, then they are not reimbursed for the doctor's costs and the medical costs. That is something that is very traumatic. It is also about their sense of security.

For those reasons, we need to have this motion debated and, more important, we need to have it implemented. I think the will is out there. I am hoping that people will not draw conclusions and that they will assist in at least maintaining the status quo, while at the same time the government is opening up breaks for big business, corporations and other people.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today with regard to integrity. The government has used that word a number of times. However we have to look at the broader issues.

The government introduced a litany of small piecemeal tax credits with regard to persons with disabilities. However over the last 10 years my community has had increased employment challenges. We have had a widening of the gap in terms of our standard of living and additional challenges.

Within the hon. member's community, does he think there has been integrity in this process? Is he seeing more vulnerable Canadians in his community similar to those in mine of Windsor West where this government has not addressed the general issue of disability? This tax credit is really an attack when the government is widening the scope of people's ability to have tax exemptions and capital losses. It is focusing all those things on one small group. I would like to ask the hon. member how he feels about integrity in this process.