House of Commons Hansard #40 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was banks.
The Speaker
Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
March 30, 2001
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ian Binnie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th day of March, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Jane Stewart Liberalfor the Minister of Finance
moved that Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read the third time and passed.
Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in this crowded House to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-8, an act to establish the financial consumer agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions.
I think we can all agree that the financial services sector plays a critical role in the Canadian economy. It underpins all other sectors in the economy by providing the means to channel savings into investment, resulting in economic growth and wealth creation.
The role the financial institutions play in the life of Canadians is equally important. In fact, these institutions protect Canadians' assets well and meet the needs of consumers and businesses as far as major financing, purchases and investments are concerned.
Let us not forget that half of Canadians are shareholders of our financial institutions, either directly or indirectly, so this represents an important source of revenue for Canadians now and in the future.
As legislators, we have an important responsibility to encourage the health of this sector. According to 1999 Statistics Canada data, 863,000 Canadians were employed in the financial services sector, including finance, insurance, real estate and leasing.
Canada's federal financial institutions operate within a legislative and regulatory framework defined by parliament. These legislative acts require the government to periodically review this framework and to bring before parliament any amendments needed to ensure that it remains current and relevant.
I would like to call the attention of the House to the four fundamental principles that underpin the legislation and which guided the government's decision making on the specific measures in the policy paper “Reforming Canada's Financial Services Sector”. It was released to the public on June 25, 1999, as the government's response to the MacKay task force report.
The first principle is that banks, trust companies, credit unions, insurance companies and other financial institutions must have the flexibility to adapt to the changing marketplace and to compete and thrive, both at home and abroad. Upholding this principle is necessary if the financial sector is to maintain its contribution to economic growth and job creation in the face of increasing globalization and rapidly changing technology.
To this end the bill provides additional flexibility for banks and insurance companies to organize themselves under a new holding company option that would be available to them, thus permitting them to explore opportunities to improve efficiency and grow their businesses by reducing the regulatory burden, among other things.
Similarly, we are raising the limits on widely held ownership of financial institutions in order to permit the exchange of considerable shares which is required for the conclusion of strategic alliances and joint ventures. This important business strategy is becoming increasingly common in other industries and ought also to be available to Canada's financial institutions.
The bill substantially expands permitted investments for financial institutions and makes these available to both the holding company and the parent subsidiary structures.
The second principle guiding the bill stresses the importance of competition. Specifically, we believe that vibrant competition in the financial services sector is necessary to allow consumers and businesses alike to benefit from a wide range of choice at the best possible price. With this objective in mind, the government is acting to remove unnecessary barriers for a bank start-up. We want to encourage new entrants. To that end, we are lowering the minimum amount of capital required to start a bank to $5 million from $10 million.
We are also proposing a new three tier, size based ownership regime that allows for the single ownership of small banks.
Banks with equity of $1 billion to $5 billion are also allowed to be widely held, provided at least 35% of shares are widely distributed among the public. There will, however, be no restrictions on the ownership structure of small banks with equity of less than $1 billion. These measures will make it possible to increase competitivity in the banking sector and to encourage new players.
Large banks with more than $5 billion in equity would continue to be widely held. Furthermore, commercial enterprises would also be allowed to establish new banks. This may be potentially attractive to retail companies that already have a network of stores or outlets.
The bill also includes measures to strengthen credit unions and caisses populaires. It contains measures that could accommodate their plans to restructure themselves in a way that reduces structural fragmentation and increases efficiency. It also provides the government with the regulatory flexibility to respond to new initiatives that may be forthcoming from the movement. The end result could be a stronger and more competitive credit union movement in Canada, better placed to challenge other financial service providers across the land.
We also propose to open up the Canadian payments system to life insurance companies, securities dealers and money market mutual funds. We believe that a broader range of participants in the payments system would foster competition because these firms would be able to offer services akin to chequing accounts.
Moreover, we will implement measures to align access rules for foreign banks in Canada with those governing domestic banks, so as to provide greater flexibility to foreign banks that wish to settle in Canada.
All in all, these measures will promote competition in the financial services sector, thus contributing to ensuring that Canadians get the best possible deal from suppliers of financial services.
I know the House is interested in the third guiding principle underpinning this legislation and that is to empower and protect consumers of financial services.
To that end, this bill would provide better access to basic services. It would allow us to specify in regulation what are reasonable identification requirements for an individual to open a bank account. The legislation also would provide regulation making authority regarding the provision of a low cost account and would oblige banks to follow a fair and reasonable process if they decide to close a branch.
As for low fee retail deposit accounts, memoranda of understanding have already been signed by the eight largest banks. While such accounts may vary from bank to bank, they must all comply with standards that will allow us to ensure that all Canadians have access to an account at an affordable price.
The bill would also establish two new organizations to promote and safeguard consumer interests in the financial sector. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, would consolidate related functions currently housed in Finance Canada, Industry Canada and OSFI. This agency would uphold the consumer protection provisions of our financial institution statutes, monitor institutions' compliance with their pledges to self-regulate, and provide consumer information and promote consumer education about financial services.
The government would also work with financial institutions to launch the new Canadian financial services ombudsman. This office would provide an independent, objective and impartial third party who would review complaints from individual consumers and small business owners who believe that their financial institution has treated them unfairly and have not been able to resolve these matters with the management of the financial institution.
However, we are also mindful that regulations are not without cause, which brings me to the fourth and final guiding principle underlying this bill.
We believe that our government should initiate improvements to the safety and soundness of the sector, but we should also take every opportunity to lighten the regulatory burden when we can. Bill C-8 would do just that.
The bill before us today seeks to implement a streamlined approval system for numerous operations that must be approved by the superintendent.
We are also proposing to improve the payments system, to ensure that the public participates more fully in the decision making process, and to ensure that the standards, regulations and rules of the CPA reflect the public interest.
The bill would also enhance the powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to deal with firms that do not meet the regulatory requirements. It would also bolster the superintendent's power to intervene in the affairs of a financial institution that is heading for trouble. This would ensure that the prudential safeguards for the financial system are consistent with the new reality of stronger competition which we are trying to bring about.
In conclusion, the measures embodied in the bill we are debating today uphold and advance all four of the guiding principles I have just enumerated.
Canada's financial sector has an excellent reputation. Our financial institutions are extremely successful, both at home and abroad. To retain this excellent reputation and to keep our financial institutions strong, we need this new policy framework, a framework for the future. We need it because it recognizes the change around us, it permits our financial institutions to seize new opportunities and it manages change for the benefit of all Canadians.
I would like to thank the members of the finance committee and the hon. members of the House for being very supportive of this bill. I firmly believe that the measures proposed in this legislation provide an important framework whereby we can move forward together.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I should like to start my debate by saying how nice it is to see all the smiling faces of Liberals across the way. I am sure they are anxious and eager to be here today to discuss business they were unwilling to discuss yesterday, serious issues that concern the House such as the—
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActThe Royal Assent
The Speaker
I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-20, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2001—Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002—Chapter No. 2.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read the third time and passed.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again let me say how gratifying it is to see so many government members in the House. We have important business to discuss today, as we did yesterday when the ranks were a little thin on the government side.
Members from all opposition parties attempted to discuss important issues, such as the Shawinigate affair and the issue of the junior minister of multiculturalism, issues for which the Canadian people demand answers, and there was an absence of response in the House, to put it kindly.
I am happy to be here on a Friday to discuss government business, such as Bill C-8. I know you were waiting for me to get back to that, Mr. Speaker. I wish government members, including some of the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, took their roles as seriously as we in the opposition take our roles.
I listened to the presentation made by Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Finance earlier. The Alliance Party will support the bill because it would bring Canada's financial institutions to a more progressive level.
As we know, since the government took office in 1993 precious little, if anything, was done to put Canada further ahead as a progressive financial institution country despite calls from the official opposition in the 36th parliament. We have stayed on par with countries such as Mexico.
It has taken the government seven and a half long years to realize that one of the most important sectors and pillars of our economy is the financial institution sector which includes banks, insurance companies, securities companies and credit unions. The progressiveness of this pillar of our economy was lagging behind all our global competitors, placing our institutions at a severe competitive disadvantage. Why it took the government so long one can only guess, but given its record over the past eight years I suppose it was the status quo.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said a number of things with which we agree. However he did talk about some things that left us rather confused, considering the motions in amendment that were put by the official opposition and that were voted down at report stage.
I will deal with statements made by the parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister, as well as those made by his colleagues, indicating that the government wants to run its business in a very open and transparent fashion so that Canadians, the official opposition and other opposition parties can judge how it is doing.
What the government did in reference to our amendment was ask that the financial consumer agency report to the Standing Committee on Finance on a permanent basis. The committee is part of parliament, which includes all opposition parties and government members. That is openness and transparency. Yet in the bill it says that the agency would report to parliament through the Minister of Finance.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am not cynical when it comes to the government. What that may mean, though, is that the Minister of Finance would allow only what he wants to report to parliament out of the reports he gets from the financial consumer agency. When it comes to Liberal governments, and the door is opened to allow them to withhold certain information that they do not want to be made public, we have seen time and time again that they have taken every advantage of that opening.
A case in point is the current Shawinigate affair. The ethics counsellor, who is supposed to be the watchdog of how cabinet conducts its public and private business, reports directly to the Prime Minister, the very person who appointed him to the job; in other words his boss.
There have been enough questions raised about this relationship. The question of the year and maybe of the century is why would Canadians and opposition members sit by when there are questions about how the Prime Minister has conducted his private business and his so-called blind trust.
Time and time again the Prime Minister has stood up and said that the ethics commissioner, the guy that he hired and that he authorized in that position, says that he is okay and that everything was above board.
This is the same situation we have with the financial consumer agency where it reports directly to the very person who will be appointing them to that position. There is a bit of a perceived conflict of interest.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, as my hon. colleague just said, a master-servant relationship. That is simply not acceptable to the official opposition nor to the other opposition parties. We have since 1993 demanded that the government be open and transparent. When the parliamentary secretary talks about the openness and transparency in the bill, here is one area in which he may be a stranger to the actuality of the relationship.
The government voted against the amendment which would have allowed that openness and transparency.
The parliamentary secretary also made a statement saying that it was the wish of the government, and it is in Bill C-8, that it would lighten the regulatory burden wherever it could.
I refer to another amendment that the official opposition put forward with regard to the payment system. The members of the payment system said very clearly that they knew there were a set of regulations and that they wanted to comply with them, but that in the course of doing business, they now and again need to make some rule changes to streamline their business in order to give better customer service to the people using the system. They said that their association wants to use the most unobtrusive method within a framework. They asked, through the Canadian Alliance, for the Minister of Finance to lay out a very clear and transparent framework under which they could operate, one that would be self-regulating and allow enough flexibility that they would not have to report every single rule change as it occurred. Having to do that is a regulatory burden that is unnecessary.
They wanted a clear and defined framework under which they could operate, which is what is in the amendment, but the Liberal government, despite wanting to lighten the regulatory burden however it could, voted that amendment down.
My last point about the amendments that we put forward deals with a statement made by the parliamentary secretary. He said “Credit unions must have the flexibility to compete and thrive at home and abroad”. How coincidental. Credit Union Central and members of its association want to have the flexibility to compete and thrive at home and abroad but it was not provided for in Bill C-8. We knew how important that was to Credit Union Central so we put forward an amendment respecting its wishes.
For a government that believes that credit unions must have the flexibility to compete and thrive at home and abroad, as the parliamentary secretary said, it voted against that amendment.
These are three distinct areas where the government is saying one thing yet doing another. Far be it for the government to say one thing yet do another. I am hesitant to bring up the red book wherein it promised to scrap, kill and get rid of the GST.
I will draw a comparison. During the election the Liberals went door to door, doorstep to doorstep, and over fences into backyards. They went to public meetings, to little restaurants and coffee shops, and said that they hated the GST. They hated it since the Tory government brought it in, and to show how much they hated it, they said that if they were elected they would kill that nasty GST. I know you would have been re-elected in any case, Mr. Speaker, because those are words that you never uttered.
Unfortunately the majority of Canadians believed that promise to kill, scrap and abolish the GST and elected a Liberal government in 1993. To their great surprise, the GST was neither scrapped, killed nor abolished. There was a name change, though, in Atlantic Canada where it is now blended and called HST. I am comparing that to the Liberals' continuing readiness to say one thing yet do another.
In those three areas the parliamentary secretary has been caught up in his own words because the bill does not reflect some of the things he said. We now have a bill that will give banks and financial institutions an opportunity to become more competitive at home and abroad. It will give them an opportunity to become more efficient and flexible in their operations, with the exception of the areas I outlined in the amendments the Liberal government voted against. These were amendments members of the financial sector wanted put through, but they were voted down.
Overall the bill would allow banks and financial institutions to become more competitive, particularly in the global economy. Due to the Liberal government's inaction over eight years, financial institutions have lost ground in the global economy. Their competitive position has gone down, so I am sure they will welcome the bill.
While the financial services sector will have this progressive bill to allow it to become more competitive, one wonders why the Liberals have not addressed some other issues that equally need to be recognized as areas where we are lagging behind.
As was reported in the news last night, the outdated medical equipment in our hospitals needs to be recognized. There is even talk about health dangers because some of the medical equipment is old, outdated, and possibly becoming a danger to patients who use it.
The government embarked on many new spending programs such as: the millennium project, fountains, golf courses and any kind of vote buying scheme that it could come up with. It has increased spending every year on brand new programs. It has raised taxes every year in the neighbourhood of $3 billion to $7 billion.
Yet there are areas of our country that are suffering because the Liberals have not considered them important enough to make them progressive, as they have finally done with Bill C-8 for banks and financial institutions.
I bring to the attention of the House the trouble farmers have when they go to financial institutions to apply for financing. Almost every farmer in Canada has either tried to get financing or is considering doing so and is not able to. They cannot do so because their farms are at risk, and their farms are at risk because of the government's refusal to help them compete with our American neighbours. U.S. farmers receive all kinds of subsidies and assistance because their government recognizes the important role agriculture plays in the United States.
Our government has refused to recognize Canada's agricultural industry to the same extent that our biggest trading partner does with its farmers. As a result, we are just an imaginary border away. American agricultural products come into Canada and sell at lower prices than we can produce them at in Canada. This is because the government has failed to recognize the importance of agriculture. It has failed to recognize the great disadvantage our farmers have when competing with our trading partners in the United States and abroad.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
That is right. The government is certainly willing to finance golf courses and hotels and highway projects in the maritimes. One former cabinet minister from Nova Scotia built a highway to nowhere for about $30 million. That brought a bit of shame on to the government, but shame does not last long with this government.
One need only look at the current situation with the junior minister of multiculturalism who has brought shame, embarrassment and dishonour to her office. The government has not recognized that shame, embarrassment or dishonour. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have stood in the House every day and said she was sorry and that we on this side should recognize that.
They said that one of our members had done something and apologized and that they had accepted the apology. However there is a difference. The minister of multiculturalism is still sitting in her chair in the role of junior minister after giving an unrepentant and half-hearted apology. Our member for Edmonton—Strathcona is sitting in the backbenches after having been duly disciplined.
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, but I would like to know the relevance of what he is speaking about. When we started this debate we were discussing Bill C-8.
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
The parliamentary secretary is quite right. I was seeking to draw the attention of the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley to the bill. I know he has drawn several parallels to various things, but this has gone so far off topic I am not sure we can get it in parallel any more.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is a direct parallel here. I was comparing the way the government treats farmers to the way it treats financial institutions. The government feels that the way it treats our financial institutions is important, and I agree. However it has forgotten about farmers. It has forgotten about how its lack of interest has affected our farmers. It has no shame.
We are happy that the government has put forward legislation to allow banks to develop their holding company structures. That will be progressive. We are also happy that we have a competitive, thriving and vibrant insurance industry in Canada. We are happy that the government has seen the wisdom of disallowing banks from retailing insurance products through their branches. That day may come, but the insurance industry now has a five year window to prepare for any impact it might cause.
Alliance members also know there is a competitive, vibrant auto leasing industry in Canada. We know that Canadian consumers who are considering buying automobiles can get leasing from a number of different areas, in some cases down to 0.9%, 0.19%.
We are happy that the government has seen the wisdom of telling banks they cannot retail auto lease products in Canada, and that it recognizes the great deal for consumers that now exists in the auto leasing business.
In order to keep down the actuarial risk in auto leasing there must be good risks to offset people who are not such good risks. Overall, one can keep lease rates down and recognize that the automobile companies, which produce automobiles and have subsidiaries like GMAC, Ford Credit or Chrysler Credit, have an interest in selling automobiles. All that seems to work together pretty well to keep interest rates down when it comes to leasing.
It is a conflict when we see the government doing something pretty good that we can support and then doing all the other things that it does. It makes us wonder who is in charge over there. We can draw many examples. I can draw one in my own riding.
Bill C-8 is as very progressive bill. It will allow one of the pillars of our economy to be more competitive globally. That is a good thing.
Members must ask the question: If the government can put through a bill like this, how can it be so neglectful of other important issues? In my riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley, in Burns Lake, B.C., there is the Burns Lake Indian Band. The band has had an agreement for the last number of years in which the village of Burns Lake, which parallels the band, provides water and sewer facilities to the band. For the last seven and a half years the band has decided that for some reason it would stop paying taxes.
The village of Burns Lake has a very small tax base and to lose $150,000 a year in taxes has a big impact. The federal government would not want to lose tax dollars either, as evidenced by the paltry tax cuts it has given Canadians. However, I digress a bit.
All of a sudden, after seven years of non-payment of taxes, the village of Burns Lake said it would cut off the band's water, sewer and other services because it was not paying its bill. Hon. members would think the department of Indian affairs would be concerned about this and try to make up the back taxes and get the thing rolling again. The shutoff date for the band's water, sewer, fire protection and emergency services is April 30, 2001.
The mayor of Burns Lake and his officials were here a few weeks ago and I met with them and the minister of Indian affairs. We said that the issue was a problem and we agreed to get an independent negotiator to work it out and—
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we are trying to get a parallel it is only fair that we clarify. We all have a tendency to stand in caucus and say things.
The member earlier referred to certain commitments that were made. I will quote for the record what the Liberal government said, because the member was a bit misleading.
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Order, please. I know the hon. member will have an opportunity to participate in the debate later. It sounds to me as though he is raising not a point of order but a debate.
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Different members' views of the facts, sometimes of the same facts, are seen through different eyes or maybe different glasses. However the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has the floor, and if he kept his remarks more directly relevant to Bill C-8 perhaps there would be less controversy.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attention Liberal members are giving my presentation. That has certainly been lacking in the House over the last few days and as a result they lost their position yesterday.
After an agreement there is still no negotiator and no extension of the services planned. As we speak, the Liberal government and the Indian affairs department know very well that there is a full blown infrastructure program on the reserve.
To set up a stand alone system on a temporary basis would cost $600,000 or $700,000 plus $60,000 a month to maintain. That is just a temporary system. The Liberals are looking to embark on a permanent system that would cost in the neighbourhood of $4 million to $7 million over the next five years.
All this could have been avoided if they had paid the back taxes and kept current. They could have saved themselves about $5 million over the next five years. However the government and the minister of Indian affairs do not see the wisdom of that.
I am happy they saw some wisdom in our financial services sector. If the member was wondering when I would get back to that, I had to draw that comparison. There is wisdom in Bill C-8. I know that the banking industry, insurance companies, securities companies and the payment system are applauding it to a large extent. It has a lot of deficiencies. We wish the government had been 100% progressive rather than 97%. The other 3% represents the three amendments we put forward that the government voted down.
I know this has been interesting for Liberal members. We have had a chance to talk about a lot of important issues and I appreciate the attention of my Liberal colleagues across the way.
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Allison Forsyth, winner of the giant slalom for the fifth year in a row at the Canadian championships at Mount Orford, Quebec.
Ms. Forsyth, a native of Nanaimo, British Columbia, counts this as her eighth championship victory, tying the record of Kathy Kreiner for the most national championship titles.
Congratulations are in order as well for Geneviève Simard of Val-Morin, Quebec, and Anna Prehal, of Outremont, Quebec, for placing second and third, respectively.
Canada's alpine team is very well prepared for the 2002 winter Olympics. We have no doubt these young athletes will continue to make Canada proud.
Congratulations, once again.
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week I returned from Sudan where I had an unprecedented opportunity to meet with human rights workers and victims of that terrible conflict. This week I released a seven point peace plan that would stop the bloodshed and end the famine in that country.
The plan asks the Sudanese government, first, to enact an immediate ceasefire and stop arming its proxy militia; second, to allow relief shipments and NGOs unrestricted access throughout the country; third, to stop all bombing; fourth, to implement the declaration of principles it agreed to; fifth, to propose an oil revenue sharing agreement with the south; sixth, to stop supporting the Lord's Resistance Army; and, seventh, to start an intertribal dialogue in the south that focuses on peace and development.
Canada is in an ideal position to work with the international community to save the lives of a million people who are poised to die in the next few weeks. So that we can secure a long lasting peace, let us act now and save lives.
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a progressive school in my constituency of Kitchener Centre.
Cameron Heights Collegiate has launched the Cameron Institute of International Studies to introduce the global perspective to all its classes. International studies is seen as a natural progression for Cameron Heights, as its students hail from 57 countries with almost one-third of their families not having English as a first language.
A wide variety of learning opportunities is presented to each student, creating informed, tolerant, compassionate and lifelong learners.
In the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, people are key to Canada's productivity and competitiveness. Canada's multiculturalism stimulates innovation and creativity.
I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating Cameron Heights for adding this exciting component to its curriculum. It is through this sort of initiative that we can bridge differences, bring down barriers created by racism and discrimination and help more Canadians participate fully in society.
Cameron Heights International Studies provides a window to the world for Kitchener youth.
