Dick Harris

[Multiculturalism, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism did not simply make a mistake. She deliberately fabricated a story about some phantom letter and about some phantom cross burning in some phantom city in British Columbia. She slandered the people of Prince George. She slandered the people of Kamloops.

How much more shame does the minister have to cause the government, the House of Commons and the country before the Prime Minister fires her? Why does he not do it now instead of—

[Multiculturalism, March 27th, 2001]

Yes, I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. She fabricated that story and misled the House. Why does the Prime Minister not just fire her?

[Multiculturalism, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that nobody wrote a letter to that junior minister of multiculturalism, no mayor from any city in British Columbia, about any cross burnings ever in that province.

She made it up. She fabricated that story. She lied to the House.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-8, in Clause 314, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 36 on page 478 with the following:

“entity,

(ii) the association is permitted by regulations made under paragraph 396( a ) to acquire or increase the substantial investment; or

(iii) the entity is an association and the investment is not restricted by regulations made pursuant to paragraph 396( d );”

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak primarily to Motion No. 14, which was put forward by the Canadian Alliance.

Let me preface my comments by saying that one of the things the government sought to do as a result of the MacKay task force, and indeed, one of the many recommendations in the MacKay task force, was to give flexibility or give provisions in the bank legislation to allow for the progressive restructuring of the credit union system in Canada.

We have met continually with the people from Credit Union Central, the credit unions out in B.C. and representatives of that group. They have told us that they are prepared to restructure their operations so they can expand their service to Canadians, so that in the event there are bank mergers of domestic banks and there is a perception that competition is going to be tough, they want to fill that void. In order for them to do that, they have to restructure their operations. They want to be able to bring more branches in under an umbrella type of structure. In order to do that, they need to have some flexibility.

I believe I am correct when I say that the 10-50 rule applies to credit union structures now. As I recall it, one can either have a 10% interest or a 50% interest only. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will tell me if I am on the wrong track here, but I believe that is the gist of it.

What they want is to have flexibility on the participation between the umbrella group and the branches that would be operating under this new business structure. I know the parliamentary secretary is warm to this proposal by the credit unions and by Credit Union Central.

This amendment would in fact give the credit union parties looking for this change the flexibility to set up their new structure and the flexibility to fill the void in customer service at the ground floor consumer level.

I know that the secretary of state for banks and financial institutions knows about this desire on behalf of the credit unions. I am of the opinion that the government has perhaps said to the credit union people who have been talking about this that it does not have a problem with this but that perhaps the credit unions should show the government how to do it. The government has sought the advice of the people in the credit union structure.

This amendment reflects a suggestion by the credit union people to the government on how they can be given that flexibility. I will close here and just assume that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance will see the wisdom of this amendment and ask his colleagues to say yea when it is called.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-8, in Clause 244, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 408 with the following:

“effect of the designation. The Minister must also provide in writing: a ) a statement of the reasons why, in the opinion of the Minister, it is in the public interest to designate a payment system; b ) the process by which consultation of the manager, the participants, and other interested parties who could be affected by the designation can take place, including how the Minister's concerns can be addressed; c ) a statement to the effect that where a system fails to adequately address a Minister's concerns, the Governor in Council may designate a payment system.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the Canadian Alliance Party to speak to Bill C-8 and in particular to the motions we put forward at report stage.

Motion No. 1 deals with a clause in the original bill that would require, upon the setting up and operation of the financial consumer agency, the commissioner of the agency to report its activities to parliament through the Minister of Finance.

We have stood in the House on many occasions calling for the independent arms of government agencies and commissions to report not through a minister but directly to parliament, and in this case to the Standing Committee on Finance. The motion reflects that an amendment be put that would require Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to report to the Standing Committee on Finance on a permanent basis.

Motion No. 13 deals with the operation of Interac services. The bill calls for the association to report every rule change during the normal course of operation to the Minister of Finance. This is an onerous demand. We would make an amendment that would give the Interac Association a very clear and transparent framework to operate under that is self-regulating. Its compliance people would have a very clear understanding of what is required of them by the Minister of Finance.

The motion would require that the Minister of Finance provide:

(a) a statement of the reasons why, in the opinion of the Minister, it is in the public interest to designate a payment system;

(b) the process by which consultation of the manager, the participants, and other interested parties who could be affected by the designation can take place, including how the Minister's concerns can be addressed;

(c) a statement to the effect that where a system fails to adequately address a Minister's concerns, the Governor in Council may designate a payment system.

The broad, transparent and clear framework included in the bill by the Minister of Finance would be sufficient for the association to conduct its normal day to day business transactions. It would not burden it with a requirement to report and discuss every rule change so long as it was operating within the broad framework.

That is what I wanted to say as far as the motions put forward from the Canadian Alliance in Group No. 1. Overall it is a progressive bill. While we criticize the government for being tardy on it, we are happy with the bill. It is bringing Canada's banking system to a more progressive stage so that we can compete with our competition around the world.

I ask government members to see the prudence and the common sense in these amendments and I am sure they will support them.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-8, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 5 with the following:

“and report, subject to section 17, to the House of Commons from time to time on all matters connected with the administration of this Act, which stands permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, and of the consumer provisions”

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, her apology referred to saying it was from the mayor of Prince George. That was it. The fact is we believe that the minister deliberately fabricated a story about a letter.

I am asking her this question. Was there ever any letter, from any mayor about any cross burning incident in any city in B.C.? Was there a letter? Yes or no. Will she produce it? If not, will she admit it was a fake statement and resign her position?

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the minister for multiculturalism stood and said that she had a letter from the mayor of Prince George about a cross burning incident in the city of Prince George. Then the next day she said “Whoops, I made a mistake; it wasn't Prince George”.

I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Was there ever any letter from any mayor about any cross burning incident in any city in B.C., or was the letter just a fabrication?

[Points Of Order, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for your experience as Speaker. In the event that there was in fact no media source to provide that quote for the Deputy Prime Minister's briefing notes, would he be required to withdraw that quote in the House, it being confirmed that it was in fact a fabrication in his briefing notes as opposed to an authentic quote?

[Points Of Order, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, in a response to a question from the member for Prince George—Peace River, the Deputy Prime Minister read a quote from the acting mayor of Prince George, which he alleges is an acceptance of the secretary of state's apology.

I wonder if it is in order to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to table that document and the source of the quote that he provided to the House today.