Lise Zarac

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question by saying that the Liberal Party would abstain. There are in fact reasons for and reasons against. That is not the question. The question concerns the debate over jurisdictions.

Should the government not instead ask the Supreme Court quite simply to decide just who has jurisdiction?

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as I have already said, compliance with more regulators is easier for big business. That is not the problem. It may be a disadvantage for smaller business, but the fact is that the government should first off have established its responsibility and looked into who had jurisdiction over securities, quite simply.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Excuse me.

The Canadian Constitution does not say anything specific about such issues as the regulation of securities. It would be imprudent, therefore, to make major changes to the system only to have them challenged before the courts and invalidated.

Voting for this motion means assuming exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Voting against it means assuming federal jurisdiction. The Liberal Party will not assume anything until the Supreme Court has spoken.

Securities legislation in Canada and throughout the world has two main objectives: to protect investors and to ensure that financial markets are efficient, fair and transparent. Regulatory differences between jurisdictions in relation to the disclosure and exchange of information between corporations and investors can distort the markets and increase investor risk—two very undesirable consequences from the standpoint of economic stability and competitiveness.

In general, the agencies that regulate securities oversee four important areas: capital leveraging through the sale of securities, such as private offerings and primary distributions; corporate transparency and the continual disclosure of relevant information to investors; enforcement of the securities regulations and prevention of deceptive or fraudulent behaviour; the qualifications of securities traders; and their good reputation and accreditation.

Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec are currently opposed to a single securities regulator. Ontario and British Columbia, on the other hand, are in favour. In October 2007, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asking the government to drop its plans for a national securities regulation commission. One of the arguments made by the provinces is that securities are a provincial responsibility under section 92(13) of the Constitution on property and civil rights. The federal government should not get involved.

Under the current regulations, securities in Canada are subject to directives from more than 13 provincial and territorial authorities. This sows confusion and hampers investment in Canadian businesses.

Companies trying to attract capital under the current system find it very expensive to comply with all the provincial regulations. Small businesses are particularly hurt because the fixed costs of compliance are proportionately higher for them. Time is also an important factor in leveraging capital, and the need to comply with a number of provincial regulatory systems delays negotiations. Investors from less populous provinces may be denied particular investments because some companies trade only in the largest provinces. The differences and disparities in the current regulations make implementation difficult. More resources would have to be devoted to it.

In answer to the criticism, all the provinces and territories with the exception of Ontario formed the Canadian Securities Administrators, a forum that allows the various securities regulators to coordinate and harmonize the regulation system in Canada. The Canadian Securities Administrators have developed a number of initiatives, including a passport system allowing for a single wicket and the ability to participate in all the regional capital markets.

On March 17, 2008, the securities passport system introduced the next stage, as a result of which any prospectus approved in one province would be recognized in all the other provinces, except Ontario. Canadian Securities Administrators also introduced an electronic data system for analysis and research to make information available, and a simplified national registration system for securities traders. According to an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted in 2004, 75% of financial professionals who responded were in favour of a national regulatory agency. In 2006, the Crawford panel commissioned by the Government of Ontario to examine securities regulation recommended the adoption of a common securities regulator.

The government included the creation of a national regulatory agency in the Speech from the Throne of November 19, 2008. At the time, the Minister of Finance proposed an exemption for any provinces that were opposed to the plan, including Quebec.

Last January, the panel led by Mr. Hockin published a 100-page report that called for creation of a decentralized single securities regulator that would allow Canada to protect investors better and be better integrated with international markets.

However, despite some recognition of provincial jurisdiction in the promise to maintain a presence throughout the country, the ministers of finance of Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec immediately opposed the plan. They threatened to sue the federal government if they lost their regulatory authority in this field. British Columbia gave official approval to the proposal.

Our position is clear. Before proceeding with a single Canadian securities commission, we should refer this question to the Supreme Court to determine whether that is constitutionally possible. However, we cannot support this motion today without reservation. It is not certain that such an institution would not better serve the economic interests of investors. That will have to be determined if the Supreme Court decides that the Constitution does permit such a regulatory agency to be established.

I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague that the Minister of Finance is not going about it in the right way to modernize security regulation and make it more efficient so that our markets are more attractive to investors and issuing corporations. But on what cultural grounds should the regulations for buying and selling shares and bonds be completely different in Quebec? There is no plot by the rest of Canada to deprive Quebec of these decision-making market centres. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that a new securities commission would properly have offices in Montreal to be on the ground, monitoring the actions of the various brokers under its control.

I am not here to support the government’s decision, but simply to say that the government has failed to accept its responsibility to refer this question to the Supreme Court.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to take part in the debate on the motion by the Bloc about securities regulations, as put forward by my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain. This motion asks for the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces to be recognized and asks the federal government to reject, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator.

The Liberal Party understands that our national prosperity is based on cooperation and fairness. It is based on a mutual respect between provinces and the federal government, and on recognizing that provinces are partners of our federation. The project of a national securities regulator by the Harper government must be consistent with the Constitution. Consequently, the government must refer the matter to the Supreme Court before implementing its plan...

[Not-for-Profit Organizations, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's not-for-profit organizations have 12 million volunteers who provide services equivalent to 7% of the gross domestic product, to help the poorest members of our society. These organizations are most vulnerable during a recession like this one, yet it is now when they are needed the most.

Experts believe that 20% of these organizations are at risk of closing. What is the government going to do to protect them?

[Children, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, on August 19, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed June 4 to be the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. This day reminds us that there are millions of children the world over who are victims of various forms of cruelty and that the need to protect the rights of these children is urgent.

Throughout the world fifty million people have been uprooted. They are refugees who have sought safety in other countries, and more than half of them are children.

Over two million children have been killed in conflicts in the past decade. More than six million other children are believed to have been wounded, and one million of them are orphans. In 87 countries, children play near and around some 60 million landmines.

Knowing of this situation, the government has the duty and responsibility to take specific measures to make the voice of these vulnerable children heard and to come to their defence.

[Infrastructure Funds, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, members of the Union des municipalités du Québec are meeting in Gatineau. Their message is clear: the Conservatives have to move something other than their lips to get shovels in the ground.

Blaming the Government of Quebec for delays, as the Minister of National Revenue did, creates exactly zero jobs. To build infrastructure, we need money to pay workers. Where is that money?

[Infrastructure, May 13th, 2009]

I think not, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of National Revenue has said, “The delay is not our fault. We are in a position to start tomorrow morning. Quebec just has to pick its projects so that we can move ahead together all over our province”.

Is the Minister of National Revenue accusing the Government of Quebec, in the midst of an economic crisis, of not wanting to create work by launching infrastructure projects?

[Infrastructure, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the construction season is well under way. Infrastructure funding has been approved for months, but nothing is happening. The Minister of National Revenue wants to put the blame for the delay on the Government of Quebec. Quebec urgently needs to create employment.

Will the Conservatives acknowledge that they are the ones dragging their feet as far as infrastructure is concerned?

[Employment Insurance, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that was then, this is now.

Whether these workers choose to live in Magog or Sherbrooke should have no bearing on their eligibility for employment insurance. The workers at the Gurit plant all paid the same employment insurance premiums. They lost their jobs at the same time. They should be entitled to the same treatment while they look for jobs in the same region.

Will the government change the employment insurance system so that all workers are treated equally?