Dick Harris

[Multiculturalism, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister for multiculturalism wanted to stand but the Deputy Prime Minister beat her to it.

The junior minister for multiculturalism fabricated a story about Kamloops. She fabricated a story about Prince George. She fabricated the story about her staff never calling police officials.

She remembered all that, but yesterday when the member for Edmonton North brought up an incident that really did happen, she had no idea of it despite the fact it was a story in a major—

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

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.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

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—

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

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.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

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.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

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.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

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—

[Multiculturalism, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the junior minister for multiculturalism fabricated a story about a cross burning incident in Prince George and one in Kamloops. She fabricated a response about her office not calling the RCMP looking for evidence to back up her fabrications. She has misled the House on three occasions.

What does it take for the Prime Minister and for his colleagues in government to demand her resignation? How much more shame and embarrassment is needed before they will do that?

[Multiculturalism, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the Deputy Prime Minister's response he has in fact accepted and condoned the shame and embarrassment that the junior minister of multiculturalism has brought upon her office, the government and the House of Commons. It is revolting for the Deputy Prime Minister to accept that.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues demand the firing of that minister of multiculturalism today instead of waiting until the summer?

[Privilege, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my point of order. I think the member for Surrey Central has the same point of order.