Debates of Nov. 20th, 1996

Point Of Order

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for quite some time now I have been asking about the responses I have been waiting for on two questions that I have on the Order Paper. It is becoming quite a serious concern for me and possibly it is becoming a great embarrassment for the government but I want to raise it anyway. We are soon going to be recessing for the Christmas break. The two questions are-

[The Speaker]

I wonder my dear colleague, because I do not know the answers that are going to be given today, would the hon. member raise his point of order after we find out which questions

are going to be answered today. Perhaps his questions will be answered. I will allow the hon. member to raise his point of order as soon as we find out what is going on for today.

Ways And Means

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act, and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act.

I also table explanatory notes and ask that you designate an order of the day for the consideration of the motion.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

National Child Day

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in making this statement I am also speaking on behalf of the hon. government House leader and solicitor general who had to leave the Chamber for personal business.

I am here today on behalf of the government to mark the fourth anniversary of National Child Day. This day is designated to raise awareness and to help Canadians celebrate the special meaning that children bring to our lives. It is also a day to reflect on the special needs of children and to think of ways we can improve their well-being.

Again this year, the United Nations announced that Canada has the best quality of life in the world. We are proud of this, but it must not lead to complacency.

Where child poverty exists in a country as rich as Canada, it must be a concern for our entire society. The Government of Canada is acting on a number of fronts to address this problem. For example, we have doubled the working income supplement provided to low income families, and the new employment insurance program contains measures to enable Canadians to get back to work and to provide a basic income guarantee for low income families.

We also want to see children grow up in the most secure and safe environment we can possibly make. All too often children fall prey to criminal victimization and exploitation. As members know we are now discussing in a parliamentary committee Bill C-27 which provides major protection against child prostitution. It also attacks the horrible scourge of sexual exploitation of children by tourists abroad and gives us the right to prosecute Canadians who engage in these practices.

Another area of special concern to many families is the plight of children who are reported missing. At any given time there are about 1,500 to 2,000 reported cases of missing children across Canada. Most are runaways but a considerable number of these children are victims of parental abduction. Child abductions are difficult and complex to deal with when they occur in Canada. They become even more difficult when other countries are involved.

Since 1986 the RCMP's missing children registry, Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which form our missing children initiative, have come together to become a powerful force in returning missing children to their homes. This partnership has resulted in a significant increase in the recovery and safe return of missing children in Canada and abroad.

I am pleased to inform the House today on National Child Day that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is joining the RCMP's missing children registry and its partners in our missing children initiative.

Along with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in the Our Missing Children program, we are able to trace missing and abducted children throughout the world. This co-operation is vital to our efforts to ensure the safety of our children within their families, in the home and on the streets.

For example, the RCMP's missing children registry, in operation since 1986, is a major source of computerized information on missing children in Canada. In 1995 alone the registry assisted in the safe recovery of almost 400 missing children.

With the help of Canada Customs and Immigration, critical border points are alerted when a child is reported missing. This alert system has reduced the chances of children being taken out of the country where their recovery may become much more difficult.

With foreign affairs officers in Ottawa and in embassies and consulates around the world bringing their considerable expertise to this program, Canada has the strongest national system in the world to return missing or abducted children to their parents or guardians.

I must stress however that the government is not alone in this partnership. Without the help of private sector partners, police, searching agencies and non-government partners, our success rate would not be where it is today. In fact, every part of society has an important role to play in this partnership.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the our missing children program have prepared a booklet and fact sheet to provide the most accurate and current information on what to do in cases of child abductions, especially for cases involving out of country abductions.

Members of Parliament are often the first point of contact when constituents do not know where to turn when faced with a problem that requires the help of these specialized services. That is why I am pleased to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that these information documents will be distributed today to all members of the House.

Together, we can do something to ensure that our children are safe at home and elsewhere.

I call on all members of this House to join me in applauding the efforts of the men and women of our police, customs, immigration and consular services for their daily efforts to combat the problem of missing children.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the official opposition on this, the fourth anniversary of National Child Day. I would like to take a few moments to point out that the minister may have been requested at the very last minute to speak on this issue in the House, but I would like to remind him that every time a minister's statement is made with just a few minutes' notice, it is very hard for us to prepare an appropriate response. I just wanted to make the minister aware of the situation.

Having said this, I want to take this opportunity today to say how much the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about this issue.

Let me digress for a moment. On this National Child Day, I cannot help but think about the thousands and thousands of children who live in poverty right here in Quebec and in Canada. It is appalling to see such a disturbing number of children go to school hungry, unable to learn in suitable conditions.

The minister is asking us to address the issue of missing children today. Can you for a moment imagine what the parents of missing children go through? Can you for a moment imagine all the distress these children have to face?

If more than 1 million children are sexually abused throughout the world every year, how many children have to go through this same ordeal right here in Canada? True, the 1989 bill of rights for children condemned child sexual abuse, but it ignored its international dimension.

The Dutroux scandal, in Belgium, gave a graphic example of the horror of this situation. Right here in Canada, just a few days ago, major pedophile networks on the Internet were dismantled. This represents a huge challenge at the legislative level. I think we need to develop an appropriate legislative framework to take efficient measures in this area.

As everyone knows, it is hard to gather evidence against sexual tourists, which means that very few of them get convicted.

We therefore feel that one of the government's priorities should be to establish information centres and data banks on victims and those exploit them, in order to improve co-operation among countries and specialized agencies. We must look for concrete solutions to the problem of missing children and those who are victims of sexual exploitation.

Belgium is not the only country where the justice system fails to apprehend dangerous criminals. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said earlier, between 1,500 and 2,000 children are reported missing in Canada at any given time. And among these are many complex cases of abductions involving other countries, since the children are simply taken abroad, where the Canadian government can do nothing at all. Canada will therefore have to take a long hard look at this situation and act accordingly.

We must have mechanisms for tracing Canadian and Quebec children who have disappeared abroad. That being said, we can only applaud the minister's decision to have his department join the

missing children registry of the RCMP and its partners in the our missing children program.

As I said just now, we must set up information centres and data banks. Since the missing children registry is an important source of computer data on missing children in Canada, I think its association with the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot be other than positive. The next step is to connect with computer data in other countries and co-ordinate our activities with these countries. Where are we now in that respect? I would like to know.

I realize it is always reassuring when the minister is optimistic. I am quite prepared to believe him when he says that Canada will have the most powerful system in the world to bring missing and abducted children back to their parents or guardians.

I agree that the program will benefit from expertise provided by Foreign Affairs officers in Ottawa and in our embassies and consulates. However, abroad, in spite of all the expertise of our best officers, Canada cannot act alone. Hence the vital importance of the role played by all partners involved, both in the public and private sectors.

Canada should, for instance, put pressure on those international partners who have not yet signed The Hague convention that would provide for close co-operation between the judicial and administrative authorities of the contracting states.

We therefore urge the government to continue to work on all these fronts. We must ensure that our collective determination is converted into concrete action.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak on national child day on behalf of Canada's children.

It is not an exaggeration to say that for most Canadians children are our greatest and our most precious resource. Children are an investment. In the short term they are an investment in dollars and cents; in the long term in the very future and success of our country.

According to the Canadian Council on Social Development, the total monetary cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $157,000, and that only represents the short term financial commitment.

One cannot think about the commitment of time and energy or the emotional commitment involved in raising children without recognizing how important these young people are in our lives. For many families they are indeed what makes life worth living. They are our future and we want the very best for our children.

We commend a good initiative like the attempt to return abducted children to their homes, as announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs today.

In my riding the threat of unaddressable fears of child abduction became only too real just this year. A parent there was faced with the reality of having no assurance that a child, under a Canadian court order to join a parent overseas, would be returned or could return to Canada. As the custodial parent he faced the uncertainty of the cruel reality of international child abduction.

For the sake of all parents and children in Canada, I urge the foreign affairs department to press forward and actively encourage all countries to sign on to The Hague convention.

The stresses and fragility that exist in families are reflected in the tragic statistics of runaways today. Too often these kids run from a home barely coping with increasing pressures and they run right into situations of danger, abuse and violence.

Today on national child day we must underline the importance of addressing not just the symptoms but the causes of such tragedy.

The tragedy in Canada in 1996 is that government policy today is constantly working against children and their families. Child poverty, which is a reflection of family poverty, has not improved under today's tax and spend Liberal government. How can it if 49 per cent of the average family's income is taken from it in taxes? Canadian families need tax relief.

Canada's low and middle income families need to keep more of their own money that will be used to alleviate their financial pressures, money that will be used on behalf of their children.

On the weekend we read another report about the tragic increase in suicides among Canada's young people. That rate has quadrupled in the last three decades. Experts say that one of the primary reasons for this increase is hopelessness and fear of the future. And that we see in our present economic situation.

The unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent while it is half that in the United States. The government has cut transfers to provinces dramatically without offering any substantial strategy for securing the access of Canadians to higher education and health care over the long term.

Despite the fact the government can no longer offer the security it once did, this same government refuses to allow Canadian families to keep more of their own income so that parents can fill this gap by making their own provisions for the security of their families and especially their children.

Presently there are about 30 federal programs which target spending toward children or issues that impact children most. The government has never done a substantial evaluation of those programs to see if they are producing the desired outcome. Yet its philosophy is simply to create more programs and throw more money at the problems.

What is needed is for Canadian families to keep more of their own earnings and use those earnings on behalf of their own children.

Committees Of The House

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act.

Since this is the first bill I have tabled, I would like to thank members from all sides of the House who worked so hard to create the unanimity that supports the bill.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Health.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 46th report later this day.

Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-350, an act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada.

Mr. Speaker, polls of the participants in the Quebec referendum showed that many were unsure what a yes vote meant. This government's sole response has been to ask the supreme court to rule on a unilateral declaration of independence.

I therefore want to table my private member's bill aimed at reducing the uncertainties surrounding Quebec's separation by spelling out the consequences of a yes vote, including becoming a foreign country with resulting loss of rights to travel and work freely in Canada and to elect representatives to Parliament.

My bill also protects the rights of areas where the majority of people vote to remain Canadian. This bill challenges separatists to agree on basic rules before any future vote.

In the terrible event that 50 per cent plus 1 of Quebecers say they want to become a foreign country, my bill requires Parliament to authorize a binding national referendum within a year on negotiating terms of separation. My bill would ensure this issue is decided by the will of the people and not the decision of the courts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The House

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

moved that the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, tabled Thursday, October 31, 1996, be concurred in.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I want to advise the House that my colleagues of the official opposition will share their time in two periods of ten minutes.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

I am happy to discuss the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, which was submitted on October 31, 1996, particularly the dissenting opinion tabled by the official opposition in this regard.

It is unacceptable that the Liberal majority of the Standing Committee on Finance even thought for one moment, after analyzing all the arguments for and against federal interference in a matter of provincial jurisdiction, to basically recommend that a national securities commission, a Canadian securities commission, be established.

We debated this issue in committee, we received briefs, we solicited the views of various parties across Canada, in particular the Quebec government, the players in the Quebec securities field, and we found that there was a consensus to the effect that a Canadian securities commission should not be established, for three reasons.

First, pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec never signed and was forced to swallow, even against the will of the great majority of the members of the National Assembly, the area of securities is exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction. The federal government is violating its own Constitution Act. Is this normal?

The second reason is that, if the government creates a national securities commission, it will cause all the expertise in the area of taxation, accounting, portfolio management and stock exchange management to move from Montreal to Toronto and also from Vancouver to Toronto.

If the federal government's vision is to centralize all financial activity in Toronto, it must tell us. We need to know because the decision to create this national securities commission would make

Toronto the financial and securities capital of Canada, to the detriment of other regions.

In Quebec alone, we are talking about the survival of 15 000 registered dealers and advisors. We are talking about an annual trading volume of 2.9 billion shares. We are talking about $39 billion worth of shares that are traded each year.

It is unacceptable that, because of a decision based on the Liberal Party of Canada's bad habit of wanting to centralize everything at all cost within the federal government or through federal regulation, all that will be abandoned in order to meet the partisan, political and incomprehensible objectives of the Liberals. There is unanimity in Quebec with regard to the securities sector.

I would like to quote some excerpts from the five-year report tabled by the Quebec government in December 1993 regarding the implementation of the Securities Act. It was a Liberal government, and the minister responsible for securities was Mrs. Louise Robic, a good Liberal without a doubt.

[An hon. member]

Liberal, yes; but good?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

A true Liberal. That is what I meant to say. History will tell if she was good or not.

I would like to quote some excerpts from the five-year report tabled by Mrs. Robic in 1993. On the topic of federal regulation of the securities sector, she said, and I quote: "Regulation in this sector, if it ever comes about, would be completely ill advised for a number of reasons, with effectiveness topping the list. It will lead to a duplication of rules and monitoring, as well as the inevitable increase in administrative and financial costs for issuers, investors and brokers. The competitiveness of institutions, their fair treatment under regulation, and the quality of monitoring of the securities sector would suffer".

This is Mrs. Robic, a Liberal, speaking. She has just told us that if the federal government were to interfere in the securities sector, it would be completely inappropriate constitutionally, but it would also be completely ineffective, because the provinces have already developed the expertise, they already have the networks and the institutions to manage the securities sector.

I have often heard the Minister of Finance come up with ideas so ridiculous they verge on the surreal. When he talks to us about the Canadian securities commission, Picasso comes to mind, it would be so chaotic. And for some time now, we have been getting used to this sort of fuzzy thinking from the finance minister.

Basically, this is what he said: "No problem, we will establish a Canadian securities commission and if a province does not want to join it, it will keep its own provincial commission and we will have our federal commission". This reasoning is so ridiculous that I cannot make head or tail of it.

How can you improve efficiency by increasing the number of players in an area that is already heavily regulated? How can you improve the economic efficiency of sucirities management if you add one, two or three players, because there are other institutions apart from the Canadian securities commission? How can you create certainty and stability, which the securities sector has an urgent need of?

You know as well as I do that the financial community is very sensitive to any sudden change. So you can imagine how the financial community will react if faced with two players in Quebec: a Canadian securities commission and a Quebec securities commission. The financial community would no longer know where it stands. With whom would it deal? Faced with two contradictory decisions regarding an application to issue shares, which one would they accept?

Everything the government is doing will increase inefficiency, bickering and court challenges.

The only winners in such a situation, sadly, would be lawyers because the establishment of a Canadian commission would create a mess.

Speaking about a consensus in Quebec, recently the Commission sur le travail et l'économie of the Quebec government took a close look at the future of the securities industry. One of its mandates was to evaluate the appropriateness of the federal plan to establish a Canadian securities commission.

Some very serious and qualified experts on securities came before the commission, and every one of them voiced opposition to the establishment of such a Canadian securities commission. The president of the Montreal Exchange said no, as well as the president of the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec.

The representatives of the Barreau du Québec said no. The Mouvement Desjardins said no. Ogilvy Renault said no. The Investment Dealers Association of Canada questioned the appropriateness of establishing such a commission, as did various groups, such as the Investors Group.

Recently, to the great embarrassement of the Minister of Finance, in the Globe and Mail or in the Financial Post -I think it was in the latter-some players in Ontario and in British Columbia also voiced their opposition to the establishment of a Canadian Securities Commission. What a blow.

There are no two ways about it, since the speech from the throne, the Minister of Finance has repeatedly said that there is a broad consensus in Canada for establishing such a commission. That is

not true. The minister or his advisers are ill informed, very much so. Nobody wants this Canadian securities commission.

Why? Because the decision to establish one would be totally illogical. Provinces have total jurisdiction over this area and are used to working together, without the tutorship of the federal government, without the paternalistic attitude of a federal Liberal government. They have improved relations, they have improved SEDAR, which stands for System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval.

They have improved and continue to improve the system so that someone issuing securities in Canada does not have to file three different prospectuses, one in Vancouver, one in Toronto and one in Montreal. With this improved system, only one prospectus will be automatically issued from coast to coast. This would increase efficiency, instead of adding another player.

Above all, what needs to be said on this is that the federal government should mind its own business. If it had done so in the last three years, our tax losses would not add up to $9 billion. Because of the federal government's indulgence, all Canadian taxpayers had to pay higher taxes to make up for this $9 billion in lost revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on this issue.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois finance critic has very eloquently just stated the government's motivations for creating a new Canadian securities commission.

This raises the same old debate. Later on I will ask him to elaborate on this. The Bloc Quebecois has always called for an end to administrative duplication. The federal government claimed it was willing to look for ways to reduce duplication. This time, however, there is no duplication.

In Quebec, we have our own securities commission. The federal government has decided, according to its own logic, to create a Canadian securities commission, thus creating a duplication which did not exist before. The federal government will then say: "Since we agree that duplication should be avoided, the solution would be to eliminate the Quebec Securities Commission. Since duplication is to be avoided, there should be only one commission".

This is what the federal government's centralizing policy is all about. This is what will happen. Whenever there is duplication, the province, especially Quebec, is asked to withdraw from this area of jurisdiction, and duplication is created where there was none before. Then the federal government tries to justify its action by saying that the province should withdraw in order to avoid duplication.

I believe this is a red herring, and we join with the official opposition critic in demanding that the federal government withdraw from this area of provincial jurisdiction. I would like my colleague to add something on this matter, if time permits.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Joliette, for his excellent comments and his remarkable analysis and I also want to congratulate him for his speaking skills.

You are quite right dear colleague. How peculiar it is that whenever the federal government talks about eliminating duplication, overlap and inefficiency, it never looks in its own back yard, but always in the provinces' back yards.

It is quite amazing. On the one hand, it creates inefficiency. On the other hand, it says that we, as sovereignists, should respect the Canadian Constitution, but it does not even do so itself. In 1982, when the Prime Minister imposed the Canadian Constitution on Quebec, the present Prime Minister was there. He was one of those who forced Quebec to accept this unacceptable Constitution.

He tells us we should respect the Constitution, but when the time comes for him to respect the jurisdictions stated in that Constitution, he pays no attention whatsoever to it. Double standards. Whenever it suits him, he goes ahead, and when it does not, he puts aside all his beliefs and his constitutional convictions.

As I said earlier, it seems the government is annoyed whenever the provinces agree on something and live in harmony, whenever they implement a sophisticated system, which is constantly improving, an efficient protocol for the issuance of securities.

It seems the federal government does not like that and feels it has to interfere. But when it does, the quarrelling goes on. It is easy to understand. If things are so wrong, if it is so hard for us to agree in so many areas, very often it is not our fault. It is often due to provocation from the other side. We were used to a system which constantly provoked Quebec, something that is still going on under this Prime Minister, who was an important player in 1970 and 1980, one of those who forced Quebec to fall back into line.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from La Prairie, Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and Trois-Rivières. As you know, being the Indian affairs critic, I am not well-versed in economic matters. Having read the dissenting opinion of my colleagues, I told myself that I had to speak on this issue. That is why I asked my parliamentary leader to put my name on the list.

The first thing I must say, after reading the dissenting report and seeing what the finance minister was getting at-and I take over from my colleague from Joliette-is that the federal government is once again intruding in areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec.

Members on the other side of the House say all kinds of things and use all kinds of words to redefine the Canadian Confederation. They are constantly talking about decentralization and using many terms like "flexible federalism". These fine words are inconsistent with their proposals.

It seems to me that the federal government is once again being inconsistent because it is promoting a certain decentralization, a certain flexibility, while at the same time advocating the creation of a national commission that would oversee all other securities commissions. Naturally, that was quite obvious to me right from the beginning.

What the finance minister is suggesting, with the support of his government colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance, is that the federal government take over some of what the Quebec securities commission is doing in Montreal. As you know, this commission is located in Montreal. I believe this is another attack against the great city of Montreal. Montreal is already grappling with many problems. Some of them were pointed out in discussions, speeches and questions.

We notice, among other things, that the unemployment rate is always higher in Montreal than anywhere else in Quebec and in Canada. Montreal has become the capital of unemployment. Finally, the minister's proposal would aggravate the unemployment problem by transferring to Toronto the financial resources associated with securities.

This is unacceptable. The poverty rate is also quite high in Montreal. This is terrible. The waiting lines at food banks are getting longer and longer and the only thing the minister does is try to cripple a provincial commission located in Montreal, in the Province of Quebec. What city stands to benefit? Toronto.

Naturally, Toronto is always chosen for the establishment of a national securities commission. We in the Bloc Quebecois must oppose this measure proposed by the finance minister.

I was telling you that it is an important economic lever for Montreal. Here are some statistics that prove it. The Quebec Securities Commission means 120 permanent jobs in Montreal, 15,000 registered brokers and advisers, an $8 million annual budget, and the issuance of some 1,570 prospectuses and visas per year. Moreover, $2.9 billion in shares and $39 billion in securities were traded there in 1995.

One can easily understand our eagerness to stand up for provincial securities commissions, including the Quebec commission. We often hear about Quebec's financial and other resources being siphoned off in favour of large municipalities, of major centres like Toronto, and of Ontario, but this is not the first time we are being unfairly treated.

We have often denounced injustices in research and development. The situation is the same. It is the same thing for National Defence. I keep reminding the House that, in the case of armoured vehicles, the minister unilaterally decided to give the whole contract to London, Ontario, while Oerlikon, which is located in Quebec and which is a centre of excellence for turrets, got absolutely nothing.

Contracts are very often awarded directly to Ontario companies as well as to western concerns, but rarely to Quebec companies. Quebecers never get the equivalent of what they contribute as regards these lines of activity.

The same goes for Public Works Canada. We mention it regularly. There are hundreds of millions of dollars that should go to Quebec but are allocated elsewhere in Canada. The minister keeps following the same pattern, which is to yield to the pressures of Toronto's major financiers, even though he is from Quebec. It is sad to see that he approves this measure, which will undermine Quebec's efforts and those of its securities commission.

The minister uses an argument which I find somewhat fallacious when he says: "Listen, if provincial securities commissions want to remain in place, so be it. Let them remain in place". However, we know that the national commission will take precedence over any other securities commission. This will result in an exodus of financial advisers and brokers, who will all move to Toronto. This is why I think the government's argument is fallacious.

We will definitely not let the federal government interfere in a field that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, and we will do our utmost to make sure this does not happen. The Minister of Finance should commit himself to other pursuits than trying to drain off Quebec's own resources.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has tabled an excellent paper on corporate taxation. I find it abnormal that the middle class and the disadvantaged are always the ones who have to foot the bill in Canada. There are 29 large corporations that pay only 6.5 per cent tax on their profits. Normally, the rate should be much higher. They should play a part in putting government finances on a healthier footing. However, it is always the same people who end up paying: the disadvantaged through cuts and the middle class through excessive taxes.

Also, they rarely talk about closing the tax loopholes enjoyed by high income earners. These people continue to take advantage of

loopholes, and those making over $100,000 often shirk their responsibilities.

As for family trusts, the Minister was slow in tackling this problem. Can we believe today that he has solved it? I doubt it very much.

Instead of going after performing Quebec institutions like the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec, the minister should tackle the real problem, that of taxpayers who still use loopholes in the tax system, of companies that still escape paying taxes, and of family trusts that are still in existence. The finance minister himself has admitted he has a family trust, so he does not want to touch that, but the middle class and the underprivileged are still the ones who foot the bill.

I wish to move an adjournment motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval Centre:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.