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.