Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House as a member of the Bloc Quebecois to address Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions.
I listened closely to the previous speakers' speeches, especially that of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, who explained a number of guidelines followed by the government in the drafting of this bill.
First of all, he told us that the purpose of the government was to regulate in the best possible way certain aspects of the financial system in Canada, certain financial institutions, so that Canadians who put their trust in these financial institutions and deposit money in them will not have their trust betrayed because of a shortcoming in the regulations or abuses from the financial institutions themselves.
Seen from this angle, any Canadian or Quebecer would think that the federal government is fully justified in introducing the bill now before us.
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned global issues, changes in the global financial system, new technologies, the diversification of financial needs, competitiveness, everything that makes up globalization. He told us Canada must act to make sure that our financial system will react adequately if financial institutions have problems that could put at risk the money deposited by Canadians and Quebecers.
Seen from this angle, one would think that all is well, that the government must indeed take action. Later on, I listened to the official opposition financial critic, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who stressed other aspects of the issue. He said that, yes, the government was justified in taking some measures but that, while doing so, it must respect the provinces' jurisdictions. I would say that the hon. member clearly underlined different aspects of the bill which infringe upon the jurisdiction of provinces such as Quebec.
During his speech, I was looking at government members and thinking that they were elected to the House of Commons to represent their constituents. In a sense, they are forced to listen to arguments which tend to become repetitive, because, no matter what bill is being debated in the House, the official opposition will criticize it in terms of federal and provincial jurisdictions. Of course, it can be tiring for hon. members, who are elected to represent their constituents honestly, to see all their bills come under attack from a particular angle by Bloc members.
I understand that, but they must also recognize the position of a member from Quebec. I was reading a letter sent by Mr. Johnson, the former Quebec premier, to a federal minister concerning the bill, in which he was generally using the arguments presented by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. In other words, he was arguing that Quebec's jurisdiction should be respected. So it is not just a sovereignist member's point of view that has been put forward, but the point of view of a member from Quebec who wants to represent his constituents well, as is proper under the constitutional traditions of Quebec.
Once again, at the risk of displeasing some colleagues, I will tell you why a piece of legislation like this one, which at first glance appears fully appropriate and normal under the circumstances, is questionable.
It is questionable, first of all, from the standpoint of the Constitution. It is all very clear in the Canadian Constitution that private property and the Civil Code are under the Quebec government's jurisdiction. It is clear and it is there for all to read. This means that any laws or moves the federal government makes to regulate to some extent private property or items covered by the Civil Code are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional. It is with some hesitation that I use the word "unconstitutional" because it is a fairly strong word, but the fact remains that those laws or moves are intrusions by the federal government into another level of government's jurisdiction.
The Quebec government is not alone in saying this, as we saw last summer, when the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission made the same argument, saying that the draft legislation put forward at the time-it was being considered by the committee-flew in the face of provincial jurisdiction over securities regulation.
Of course, when the representative of the Ontario Securities Commission showed up before the committee which was examining this bill last summer, he had changed his mind and said: "Look, maybe it is important that the federal government legislates in this area". At that time, we were about to embark upon a referendum campaign and the people of Canada who sincerely believed that Canada should not be divided and should remain united after a referendum were sticking together. That is why he changed his tune a little bit.
But you have to understand that, at the outset, he had examined his powers and the provincial jurisdiction and had noticed that this bill would infringe upon this area of provincial jurisdiction.
This all goes to explain why this is the first concern of hon. members from Quebec-and I am not only talking about sovereignist members of Parliament-when they examine a bill. Of course it may not cross the mind of the members from the Yukon, from British-Columbia or from Ontario when they examine a federal bill. But it is a reflex that we, the politicians of Quebec, have developed over many decades. We have done so since Confederation, under the governments of Duplessis, Lesage, Lévesque, and the Johnsons, both father and sons. The elected representatives of the people of Quebec have always been especial-
ly careful to remind the federal government that it must respect the various areas of jurisdiction.
Again today, the elected representatives of the people of Quebec, as the official opposition, want to remind everyone of this basic rule of the Canadian federal system, which is the existence of various levels of government, with different areas of jurisdiction under the Constitution that ought to be respected.
On the very face of it, this bill does not respect the Quebec government's power to exercize jurisdiction over securities, because securities are private property. If private property and the Civil Code come under provincial jurisdiction, then securities also fall under provincial jurisdiction.
What is the purpose of Bill C-100? It grants the Bank of Canada jurisdiction over securities clearing houses, which, as I amply demonstrated-I believe-at the beginning of my speech, are already regulated by the provinces. The bill gives the federal government powers which go beyond its jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution.
It even goes as far as giving a power to issue directives to clearing houses and their participants. Therefore, for a Quebec representative, this is not right, this is unacceptable. That is why we are condemning it.
The second aspect mentioned by my colleague had to do with the whole issue of so-called systemic effects. This referes to a situation where a financial institution that is in difficulty because it is unable to meet certain obligations would endanger another institution, creating a kind of domino effect where a weaker financial institution can doom other financial institutions perhaps better administered or more prosperous. A schedule was added to this bill for the purpose of controlling this phenomenon.
It is clear that, in the context of globalization, governments must closely monitor such phenomena. We read from time to time in the newspapers that the problems of a bank in Hong Kong can affect another bank in England, which happens to have interests in Canada. This situation can in turn create problems for that bank's branches and institutions in Canada and in Quebec. I understand that those things have to be regulated.
But under the pretext of having to regulate such situations, Bill C-100 encroaches once more on provincial jurisdictions, in areas which are presently regulated by the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec. This agency has opposed passing of the bill in its present form precisely because it saw that the federal government, mainly through the Bank of Canada, was encroaching upon the mandate it received from the Government of Quebec.
Indeed, the schedule of the bill dealing with clearing and winding up empowers the Bank of Canada to issue directives to clearing houses and participant institutions, without regard for the charter of the institution. As we know, some institutions have federal charters. We can understand that the federal government must regulate such institutions, but there are also institutions with provincial charters. Quebec has many. There are ten trust companies, 25 personal insurance companies, 60 damage insurance companies and 1 300 credit unions with a provincial charter in Quebec. That is a lot.
It is a lot and credit unions are a special concern to Quebecers. You are all familiar with the success of the caisses populaires Desjardins in Quebec. They gave Quebecers from humble backgrounds the opportunity to found institutions based on co-op principles, so that there are now 1,300 caisses populaires throughout Quebec. These institutions were built in parishes and villages and really represent a major achievement for Quebecers.
We can see that, through this bill, the federal government is giving itself some powers over these provincially chartered institutions. We are against this.
We are not against the fact that we must protect ourselves against systemic risk that an institution could endanger another at some point. We disagree, however, with the federal government's approach. Instead, the government should have fine-tuned the large value transfer system, as a group of international experts, the Group of Thirty, proposed in 1989. The Governor of the Bank of Canada admitted as much last summer when questioned on the issue of systemic risk in the financial sector.
Of course, by the time he appeared before the finance committee last summer, the Governor of the Bank of Canada had changed his tune, as did the Chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission.
We think that he changed his tune for political reasons. That is not surprising. I can appreciate that, given the situation last summer before the Quebec referendum, those who believe in federalism and want to maintain this system in Canada may have agreed to certain things and qualified their previous proposals or statements so as to avoid embarrassing the federal government.
But the fact remains that, had the proposal to improve the large value transfer system by streamlining it been approved by the federal government, the government would not have felt compelled to give itself powers that I would describe as outrageous over Quebec financial institutions that are well managed.
Not one single financial institution in Quebec has declared bankruptcy in the last ten years. Some insurance companies have merged in the interest of their shareholders and policyholders, but there has not been any bank failure among Quebec credit unions, trust companies or major insurance companies in over ten years.
Of course, there have been problems in Canada. There have been problems in Western Canada and the government had to intervene. It think its probably did what was best for the people of Canada and Quebec at the time, but, just the same, the federal government cannot justify invading one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction by saying that, over the past ten or twenty years, Quebec has not been taking its responsibilities with respect to regulating the securities industry or financial institutions.
Again, this is seen by members from Quebec as typical of the kind of insensitivity Canada has displayed toward what could be called Quebec's unique view of federalism.
When I spoke in this House yesterday on Bill C-96, establishing the Department of Human Resources Development, I put forward the same arguments. It is all fine and well for the Minister of Human Resources Development to ensure that the moneys spent for communities and individuals in Canada are spent as efficiently as possible. But this is one more intrusion-let us say it as it is, a federal intrusion-in areas of provincial jurisdiction: occupational training, manpower, and so on.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois would like to once more condemn the federal government's approach in regulating financial institutions. Rest assured that, in committee, our members will do their utmost to ensure that these clauses, which obviously are not in keeping with a harmonious federal system, are deleted from the bill.
