Debates of June 10th, 2010

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Order, please. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Bernard Généreux Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Hochelaga that we were elected at the same time in by-elections. He was elected in Montreal, and I was elected in the most beautiful region in Quebec, if not Canada, in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. What is more, I replaced the Bloc after it had held the riding for 16 years.

So I do not think the member for Hochelaga is in any position to lecture me. The voters in La Pocatière and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup are as smart as those in Montreal, and they made a choice. I respect their choice, just as I respect the choice his constituents made.

That said, in all sincerity, we are putting this system in place to protect Canadians like the victims of Earl Jones and all the others.

Guy André Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is with a great deal of interest, and concern, that I am rising on this Bloc Québécois opposition day to strongly condemn this government's unrelenting efforts, and even obsession, to marginalize the Quebec nation, in particular by depriving it of the major economic lever of securities regulation. This is shameful.

Let us be clear—and I hope that all Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec are listening—securities regulation is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

The federal plan proposed by the Minister of Finance destroys Quebec's exclusive responsibilities with respect to property, civil rights and jurisdiction. In fact, with his national commission, the Conservative finance minister who introduced this legislation wants to do Montreal out of what it has for Toronto's benefit.

A Quebec coalition made up of a very large number of stakeholders is opposing this single securities regulation system. They include Quebec City, the City of Montreal, Quebecor, Pierre Lortie, La Capitale, professor Jacques Saint-Pierre of Université Laval, the Institut québécois des planificateurs financiers, the Groupe Jean Coutu, the Solidary Fund QFL, the CSN's equity fund, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chambre de la sécurité financière, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Chambre de commerce du Québec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Cascades and many others. Moreover, the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously opposed to this bill.

And what do we see in the House? It is a disgrace. Members from Quebec come to Ottawa to work against the will of those who elected them. Indeed, Quebeckers are overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation.

Let us also not forget that this new hostile takeover attempt by the federal government is unanimously opposed by all elected members of the Quebec National Assembly.

The plan to have a single securities regulator goes against Quebeckers' will. The federal government wants to create a single securities regulator. Quebeckers are asking the government not to proceed with this legislation.

How can Conservative members, including newly elected Conservative members, vote against the will of their own voters? I am referring to the member who just spoke, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. He was just recently elected, and he has opposed, in the House, all of these socio-economic players in Quebec. Just newly elected, and he has gone ahead and voted against the will of the Quebec National Assembly. He is voting to strip Quebec of its financial system for Toronto's benefit. That is unbelievable.

Furthermore, the Liberals have not learned their lesson over the years. They were punished. They have been in the opposition for a few years, but they are still not doing any better. They are still in favour of centralization. They still do not take into account the interests of the Quebec National Assembly and of Quebeckers. They simply defend the interests of the people of Ontario, in this case. The members from Quebec, both Liberal and Conservative, will once again vote with the federal government to create this single institution, which will weaken Quebec's financial system and which will lead to the loss of jobs.

With the complicity of the Liberals, the Conservative government is just as determined to strip Quebec of its authority over securities, ignoring the will of the National Assembly.

Since June 2009, the Liberal leader has been showing a lack of leadership on the securities issue. Instead of speaking out, he has hidden behind the argument that a Liberal government would have referred this issue to the Supreme Court of Canada before taking action. We are not discussing a legal issue in the House; it is a political issue.

In Quebec, it is the Bloc Québécois that has the support of the National Assembly, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Cascades, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, the QFL Solidarity Fund, Power Corporation, Quebecor, Transat, Transcontinental, Industrielle Alliance, and many other economic institutions in Quebec. All of the members from Quebec in this House will vote in favour of a bill that all of these socio-economic players have unanimously criticized. It is absolutely disgraceful, and for the Conservatives, it is so petty.

All of Quebec's economic, financial and business stakeholders have formed a strong coalition against the plan of the federal government.

That is significant. Mouvement Desjardins applauded community mobilization and is urging the federal government to shelve this proposal, which everyone recognizes as authoritarian, harmful, centralizing and failing to respect Quebec's jurisdiction.

Why is the government so determined to dismantle a system that, according to the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is a model for the rest of the world? The system works. It is efficient. Let us not forget that the OECD, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund support our passport system, calling it better than that of the Americans and the English.

Moreover, the OECD has ranked Canada second in the world with respect to securities regulation. What reason could there be for changing an efficient system? That makes no sense.

That is not so bad for a system that some people here say does not work well. All of a sudden, the Minister of Finance woke up with a brilliant idea to create a single securities commission, claiming that the current system, which is recognized internationally, is no longer efficient. The new system will require major investment. Already, $150 million has been invested to implement a system that they say will be better than the one we have now. But there is no proof that it will improve things. Quite the opposite.

In addition to maintaining well-paid jobs in Montreal in the financial, legal and administrative sectors, the Autorité des marchés financiers allows us to retain expertise that is important to Quebeckers and to the proper functioning of our financial system. We want to keep it. The AMF is our last bastion against the complete disappearance of stock market activities from Montreal since Toronto acquired the exchange.

To sum up, this Conservative power grab with Liberal support will inevitably cause high-ranking positions and value-added activities to leave Quebec for Toronto.

That is not what Quebeckers want, and the Bloc Québécois will oppose this proposal to the bitter end.

Jim Maloway Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated, through dozens of speeches today, that the passport system works. No less a figure than the Alberta minister of finance, a fellow Conservative to the Conservatives here, is onside against his own party on this issue. He used all the same arguments that the member just made, that this system works and it has worked for 100 years. A more recent version of the passport system is a big improvement over the past and it works very well.

People suspect that, at the end of the day, this is all about the transfer of jobs to Toronto. It will be great for Toronto because it will concentrate more jobs there. However, there will be a loss of jobs in Montreal, Winnipeg and Alberta because of what the government is up to.

My prediction is this will probably never happen. Why the government is embarking on an initiative like this in the first place is beyond me.

Guy André Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, it just does not make sense that the Conservative Party is putting in place measures such as this when it boycotts measures that could provide more support for people, such as the unemployed or seniors. It is not too interested in that. It wants to mess with a system that works. We all know that by destroying the passport system, the Conservative Party expects to benefit from conflicts among regulatory bodies. The Conservative government is inevitably creating a reason for Canadian corporations to turn to the national commission, which will obviously be located in Toronto.

How can the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec meekly stand by as power is taken away from Quebec and given to Toronto? That is the question raised by our NDP colleague.

We are pleased that the NDP supports our motion because, as the member mentioned in his speech, the effects will be felt not only in Quebec, but also in Winnipeg, which is in his riding. This bill must be defeated in the House once and for all.

Mario Laframboise Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the Bloc Québécois opposition motion. First, I want to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga who has done an excellent job all day trying to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to make the rest of Parliament understand that it is not true that Canada is always number one.

I have been pressured since my arrival at the House of Commons in 2000. The first lobbyists I met as a member were from the banks. They tried to make us understand that the banks in Canada needed to merge and grow in order to acquire other banks. They had the support of the Conservatives and some of the Liberals. The Liberals have always been divided on this issue. There was the pro-Martin camp and the pro-Chrétien camp. The pro-Martin camp was in favour of merging the banks, but the pro-Chrétien camp was not. The Bloc Québécois fought hard and managed to put off those decisions until an election was called. Since then, it has not been brought up again, which saved Canadian banks.

Moreover, as recently as last week, the new president of Power Corporation said he had made a mistake in 2000 when he supported bank mergers. He stated that the government was right not to allow the banks to merge, because they obviously would have bought a lot of bad debt. They would have bought American banks, which would have made Canada much weaker.

At the time, the Conservatives were in favour of mergers. I remember that the current Prime Minister, who was on the opposition side back then, fought for bank mergers. Today, I did not hear him say anything. He should have done the right thing, like the new president of Power Corporation, and apologized for the mistake he made back then.

The Conservatives are making a second mistake by trying once again to centralize. That is what the banks wanted to do in 2000: expand, centralize and be able to make acquisitions. Now the government wants to do the same thing, even though we have a passport system managed by the provinces that works quite well.

That is the reality and that is what our colleague from Hochelaga—a renowned economist and former minister in the Quebec government—has been trying to convey all day. Furthermore, he tried to make them understand that not only is this a mistake, but it will deprive Quebec of some of its powers. The Conservatives are trying to expand the system's administration in Toronto, while weakening Quebec, but more importantly, weakening the entire system that was created in Canada.

I thank my colleague for trying to make them understand the situation and I hope all hon. members will realize that when we defend Quebec, often we are also defending Canada, and we are trying to get them out of an impasse that will only lead to more mistakes.

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, June 14, 2010, at the end of government orders.

The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform on a point of order.

Steven Fletcher Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Is that agreed?

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Carol Hughes Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

moved that the bill be concurred in.