Debates of March 11th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Securities Regulation

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I am pleased to rise in the House here today as a member from Quebec, to speak to the motion brought forward by our colleagues across the floor.

Before I begin, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, with whom I have been meeting for the promotion of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. He came to Lévis last summer and visited the Ultramar facilities where the transshipment of liquids takes place. He also saw the Corporation of Lower St. Lawrence Pilots' Centre de simulation et d’expertise maritime.

My colleague and I have businesses in our respective sectors. Where I am from, for instance, Prévost Car inc., IPL inc., Rotobec, and Etchemins would all like to have access to capital in order to compete with large corporations from around the world. This is why I am pleased to speak to this motion here today.

As we all know, there has been a lot of talk about the Norbourg scandal in Quebec. There has been a lot of talk about the little girls, for instance, whose grandfather had invested some money for them, which was misappropriated in the end. That was the only money, the only financial inheritance, left for those children. And it was misappropriated.

I am pleased to speak about this today. All the members in this House want to find ways to avoid having this happen again, and to ensure that our financial system is reliable and efficient, and that it allows our businesses to raise large amounts of money quickly, without encountering administrative barriers or red tape. We know that is one of the irritants. I owned a business, and I know how many forms there are to fill out.

However, my opposition colleagues did not fully understand what our government wants. We are not talking about a federal regulator, but a common regulator, created in collaboration with the provinces.

Currently, nearly 80% of regulation in the securities sector comes from Ontario. It is important for the regulation to be distributed throughout the country, particularly in Quebec, so that Quebec can have a greater say in decisions that affect it and in the management of national affairs—all, of course, in the context of open federalism.

There are currently 13 statutes, 13 unharmonized responsibilities. There are a lot of barriers to overcome. Sure, the passport system is a step in the right direction, but it does not solve everything. That is why I would like to speak about the initiatives our government wants to take to ensure that the financial system is a tool that helps businesses in Bellechasse, Les Etchemins, Chaudière-Appalaches and Quebec City move forward.

We are facing international competition, and we need to standardize. Take, for example, the Europeans, who are exchanging information through the European Union, enabling them to break down administrative barriers and to standardize. That is exactly what we want to do, in collaboration with the provinces.

It makes sense that it would be easier to do business within a country than it would be with a foreign country. We must also think about demographic weight. Trading is done on the market. We are competing with the Chinese market, the Asian market—these markets have billions of people.

Canada is a major economic force, but we have to put that in perspective. Even though we have access to the entire European and U.S. markets, we have to double our share in those markets to rival, in absolute numbers, what China and India alone are doing. We have to look at the big picture and that is what we are proposing.

Our financial sector is one of the most advanced and most developed in the world. The International Monetary Fund has said so. In fact, it said so just recently when it evaluated the financial sector. The International Monetary Fund said that Canada has what it takes, but there is just one thing missing. It said that our financial system is solid because of its banks and, of course, its cooperative movements.

As a matter of fact, Lévis is the home of the largest financial cooperative movement in Canada, the Desjardins group, which, again this year, has declared record surpluses and dividends that will go into its members' pockets. These Quebec and Canadian financial institutions are in good shape and are well funded. Nonetheless, according to the International Monetary Fund, the system must and can be improved.

When talented people and capital cross borders, market competition becomes fierce. We must improve the system if we want our Quebec and Canadian companies to perform well on the global market. What does the International Monetary Fund say? It says that even though the banking system is in good shape, we are faced with challenges in the midst of the global financial crisis that has been observed since the middle of 2007.

The IMF has recommended adopting a common securities regulation system in order to improve the Canadian system. An international agency has given its advice. It did not say a federal system, but a common system; one that is established with the provinces and allows Quebec to play its full role within Canadian financial markets.

Our government acknowledges that this financial market must indeed be improved if the economy is to become more solid and more prosperous. We want our economy to perform and our manufacturing companies to develop. Among those companies there is one in my riding by the name of Jambette, which manufactures playground equipment. Some of their products are found in early childhood centres, where children go to play. They make quality products but they need investors. In order for these businesses to have access to a capital market, favourable conditions have to be created, and that is why Advantage Canada was created, as a long term economic plan. We also want to ensure that the financial institutions funding the companies in need are innovative and competitive and have a flexible regulatory framework based on recognized principles. Canada wants to ensure that these financial enterprises continue to respond to the need for growth in an increasingly stringent competitive context. This is the reason behind the plan introduced in the 2007 budget for “Creating a Canadian Advantage in Global Capital Markets”, which I invite my colleagues to read. Perhaps even if they read it thoroughly they will decide not to change the contents of their motion today.

This plan for capital markets is designed to achieve increased protection and income for investors, better jobs, more investment and prosperity. There are four elements to it.

The first is to modernize the regulatory system in order to make it easier for a company in Burlington or Bellechasse to knock on one door and be able to expand into the entire Canadian market, with the cooperation of the provinces. It therefore takes into consideration the particular composition of capital markets in Canada, which are comprised of both international companies and small and medium issuers, that is, small businesses. This is why creating a common regulatory body is so advantageous. It facilitates the passage of proportional and principle-based regulations.

The second reason we think our 2007 budget contained an excellent initiative is that we want to protect Canadians' investments. We kept in mind what had happened with Norbourg and the investors who had been left high and dry. These people had trusted the financial institutions and entrusted them with their life's savings. Overnight they found themselves penniless because of those investments. We must make sure our legislation is strictly adhered to and we must attack white-collar crime.

The third component is to increase investment opportunities. I could go on for some time about all the initiatives we are undertaking to ensure that our financial system is indeed highly competitive. This is why we struck a third-party expert panel on securities regulation to provide us with advice. We already have examples of the progress we have made in the past year.

I would point out in closing that we are the only G-7 country that does not have a common regulatory agency. If the economy of Quebec and the manufacturers of Quebec are to have access to capital and to expansion opportunities, it is important for them to have the right tools. That is what we are doing on this side of the House.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at what my colleague opposite said. He referred to what Quebec wants in relation to this bill. This is not a bill or a Bloc motion, but a unanimous outcry from Quebec against this bill. How can this member from Quebec stand up in this House and speak against Quebec's intentions? Why does he prefer to get in bed with Ontario and the rest of Canada rather than defend Quebec's interests?

Quebec's finance minister wrote this to her federal colleague:

First of all, I reiterate that the existing regulatory system in Canada works well and satisfies both the needs of pan-Canadian participants and the interests of the various regions. Accordingly, I will continue to oppose the implementation of any model leading to the concentration of market oversight responsibilities in the hands of a common or single regulator—

In closing, I also want to remind my colleague that on October 16, 2007, the three political parties in Quebec unanimously adopted a motion that opposed this position.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for his comments. I am pleased to answer that as a Quebecker in this House, I have a duty to the people of Lévis, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins to make sure the financial companies and manufacturers in my riding have easy access to capital so that they can expand into all 13 jurisdictions. At present, they have to overcome a lot of barriers, pay extra and put up with delays.

I would also like to read my colleague an excerpt from an OECD document:

Securities regulation is currently a provincial responsibility, but the presence of multiple regulators has resulted in inadequate enforcement and inconsistent investor protection and adds to the cost of raising funds.

We have seen examples of this. The OECD talks about additional cost, reduced security and inadequate enforcement.

The document goes on:

It also makes it harder for the country [Canada] to respond to changes in the global market place or to rapidly innovate.

The key to growth is the ability to react rapidly, and that is what we want to enable our companies to do.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a rather technical question. Earlier, he compared the European system to the Canadian one. I would like him to tell us more about that.

Is the existing European model similar to the Canadian passport system, or is it more centralized? Can the two be compared given that Europe is made up of many large countries, while Canada is made up of small provinces, like Prince Edward Island?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Basically, I want to emphasize that we are moving toward more open markets and also toward globalization. We have to take scale into account and understand that Canada, which has about 33 million people, has to compete with much larger markets.

The independent group of experts will study the various models and look at how we can improve the Canadian system and intervene. It does not make sense for interprovincial trade within our own country to be more complicated than that within other economic unions. I should point out that those economic unions are huge. That is why, as Quebeckers, we have to take our rightful place within our national institutions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to stand in response to the opposition motion that is before us on the idea of creating a common securities regulator.

I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for sharing his time. My brief experience with him over the last couple of years has demonstrated that he has been very conscientious and doing a fabulous job for his constituents.

While the issue of improving Canada's securities regulatory framework may seem a distant concern for most Canadians, the issue impacts more people than most would likely imagine.

Whether we realize it or not, Canada is a country of investors. From RRSPs to mutual funds, to registered retirement plans or the new proposed tax-free savings accounts, Canadians have been increasingly turning to the markets to build their nest eggs for their financial future and are counting on it to do so.

Largely because of that, the importance of ensuring Canada has the best possible securities regulatory framework has never been more important. Furthermore, this is a concern that is breaking across the stereotypical socio-economic groups one would associate with it.

As a major national labour organization, the National Union of Public and General Employees recently pointed out:

Workers have a huge stake in the integrity of the country's financial system for one basic reason. They have untold billions invested in pension funds, and billions more in RRSPs. Their retirement depends on keeping the system honest.

However, it is clear that Canada does not have the best possible securities regulatory framework and that their exists room for significant improvement.

Unlike most developed countries, Canada lacks a federal securities regulatory body. Rather, it is administered individually in each of the 13 provinces and territories, each with their own separate laws, agencies and commissions.

The current framework of 13 different sets of laws administered by 13 different agencies or commissions has naturally evoked criticism throughout the years.

In an increasingly globalized and competitive world, Canada's system is clearly out of step internationally. This fact is not lost on Canadian business leaders. In June 2007 the Financial Post polled 80% who overwhelmingly indicated our system of multiple provincial securities regulators is harming the economy and that the situation needed urgent remedy.

A representative of that viewpoint is Ian Russell, president of the Investment Industry Association of Canada. He has noted that Canada's current fragmented framework with multiple securities administrators and commissions is clearly not favourable to attracting investment. He said, “Foreigners just find the construct a deterrent. A negative. And there's very much an awareness of that”.

Little wonder that the all-party House of Commons finance committee made its first recommendation in its 2008 pre-budget consultation report for the federal government to take priority action to encourage provinces and territories to reach an agreement about a common securities regulator. As a member of the finance committee, I can clearly indicate that it was a priority for the committee.

I note that the bipartisan cooperation witnessed at the finance committee on this matter was not an isolated incident. Time after time the major relevant political parties in Canada have agreed on the need for an improved securities regulatory framework.

For instance, the previous Liberal finance minister, the current member for Wascana, also understood the urgent need for improvement and reform. During his short-lived tenure as finance minister, he strongly advocated that Canada “take a very serious look at the proposal for a single securities regulatory”, because the issue “just cannot be left to wither away. It is far too important. We need to substantially improve our system in Canada”.

Similarly, the former NDP finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North, openly admitted that she was convinced of the need for a national securities regulator as opposed to a piecemeal provincial approach. She noted at the time, “Canada does not seem to have the tool box necessary to deal with corporate fraud”.

Accordingly, international voices have repeatedly argued that Canada's system at home must be improved. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, in its 2006 survey of Canada stated, “Securities regulation is currently a provincial responsibility, but the presence of multiple regulators has resulted in inadequate enforcement and inconsistent investor protection and adds to the cost of raising funds”.

More recently, Canada became the first G-7 country to undertake the financial sector assessment program update, which provides International Monetary Fund member countries with comprehensive reviews of the stability of their national financial systems. The assessment also arranges the country's implementation of a range of regulatory standards and codes.

While the IMF characterized the Canadian financial sector as among the world's most highly developed and well managed, it noted that in Canada, “the institutions, markets, infrastructure, safety nets and oversight arrangements that comprise the system are sophisticated, and include a full range of financial intermediaries”. However, the report also concludes that there would be an advantage in moving toward a common securities regulator. In particular it would allow policy development to be streamlined to reduce compliance costs and improve enforcement.

The IMF report also notes that although the passport system of securities regulation will further rationalize the regulatory system for its participants, it will not address the inefficiencies related to costs, delayed policy development and fragmented enforcement. The report states that the participants will still be required to pay fees to the regulatory authorities of all the provinces where they raise capital. Policy development will continue to require approval from 13 jurisdictions. The passport system is not designed to address the limited enforcement authority of individual provincial regulators.

Let us examine in detail the policy development under the current system. The report notes, “the process of adoption of national instruments is protracted, since national instruments need to be individually adopted by each province. Depending on the jurisdiction, ministerial approval may also be needed. In addition, while provinces are committed to harmonizing their regulatory framework, they retain full authority to adopt a local standard”.

Let us also examine the detail of the costs imposed by the current system.

The report notes that “a system of multiple regulators entails additional costs for market participants, including additional direct costs, since participants have to pay fees to all the regulatory authorities of the provinces and territories where they want to raise capital and to provide services; there are also compliance costs and opportunity costs caused by longer review procedures. In addition, there appears to be room for efficiency savings at the regulatory level”.

The report adds that a single regulator “appears to be better positioned to address these shortcomings. There are different alternatives for a single regulator, including the 'common regulator'. A single regulator would probably reduce compliance costs for market participants, since there would be only a single system of fees. It would streamline policy development, since decisions would be taken by a single body, and therefore would allow Canada to react more quickly to local and global developments. A single regulator would have enforcement authority in the whole country, and therefore would be in a better position to eliminate the inefficiencies created by the limited enforcement authority of individual provincial regulators. In addition, the existence of a single regulatory authority responsible for administrative enforcement would help to simplify coordination with other enforcement agencies”.

These are some of the reasons that our government is committed to developing the Canadian advantage in global markets and addressing the issues raised by the IMF.

In my riding of Burlington, there are a number of small and medium size companies. Their opportunity to grow and prosper is limited by their ability to raise capital and by the regulatory framework in this country. Having to register and repeat the work over again in every province and territory hampers their growth and hampers the economic development of this country.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my colleague from Burlington.

I have much difficulty understanding how he can want to change a system which can surely be improved, but which has been recognized as the second best in the world by the OECD and which earned Canada the status of a world leader according to the World Bank. This system has also allowed the creation of very original financial products. Why should it be replaced when, according to the Constitution, this is a provincial jurisdiction? Would the member be ready to allow his Conservative colleagues from Quebec to vote in favour of the motion submitted by the Bloc Québécois?

Earlier today, I was listening to the member from Lévis-Bellechasse. His riding is just across the river from the National Assembly of Quebec. If he votes against this motion from the Bloc, he will vote against the National Assembly of Quebec, against the present Government of Quebec, a federalist government. He will vote therefore against the consensus in Quebec. How can he explain that situation? Would he agree that his colleagues from Quebec should support the motion, just as the New Democratic Party will, given that the only justification for the position of the Conservative Government is a desire to centralize?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member from the Bloc. I sit on the finance committee with him and he does an honourable job there.

However, I cannot understand why the hon. member is penalizing the business community in Quebec through this motion. The businesses and companies in my riding want to grow and expand but they are facing tremendous costs in the marketplace today. I just do not understand why the Bloc would bring forward a motion that would add costs to the business community, additional regulatory barriers to their future growth and development not only in Quebec, but all of Canada.

I think the business community would benefit from a single regulatory body for the securities market in this country. It would improve the ability to raise capital for businesses not only in Burlington, but for companies all across this country, including Quebec.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Conservative member is as follows.

I heard the answer he gave to my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, namely, that he is speaking on behalf of business people, about what is good for business people, including Quebeckers. That is the answer he gave. Has he consulted business people? Does he know their views? Is he telling us that Quebec business people are not well represented by their Quebec National Assembly, which is unanimous in saying that this common regulatory body should not be established? Is that what he is telling us?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do consult the business community in my riding of Burlington and a number of others.

As chair of the marine caucus and chair of the Conservative Party and the all party group from the steel caucus, on numerous occasions those organizations have told me that the security system under which this country is regulated is inefficient and ineffective and it is a barrier to them.

I have spoken to companies that do business across the country, including in Quebec, and they have clearly told me that we should be working in this direction. That is why I am not supporting the motion that is before us, but supporting the action our government is taking in terms of trying to find a solution to the securities regulatory system in this country.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the House about the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like to indicate right away that I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

To ensure that those listening to our debate fully understand every viewpoint expressed here, we should remind them of the nature of the motion. They should realize that there is a major difference between what the Conservatives and the Liberals are arguing for today and what citizens really want, especially those knowledgeable about and directly involved in this debate. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately abandon the idea of creating a common securities regulator, since securities regulations fall under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and because this initiative is unanimously condemned in Quebec.

When Conservative members rise in this House claiming to defend the interests of Quebec, they are working against the interests of Quebec as expressed by Quebec leaders and advocates in this regard. I will come back to that a little later.

This debate has gone on for over 40 years, and the Government of Canada makes attempts. The jurisdiction is Quebec's and the provinces' according to the Canadian Constitution of 1867. As I was saying earlier, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously opposes the creation of a single securities regulator. The creation of such a body would threaten the survival of Montreal's trading activities and would promote the centralization of financial markets in Toronto. This is why opinion leaders in Quebec unanimously oppose the federal government's project. To oppose that is to oppose the interests expressed by Quebec and its leaders.

The World Bank and the OECD also note that the current system works well and is efficient. It is the one provided for by the current Canadian Constitution. It is under the authority of the provinces and Quebec. The passport mechanism makes it possible for one province to benefit from what is done in another and from the expertise and commitments of another province in securities transactions.

A number of speakers have said that the arguments of the Conservatives and Liberals, primarily to ensure we are competitive on international markets, were perhaps myth. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, the system works at the moment. The opposite would throw a wrench in the works. In this regard, centralization, the paternalistic approach of the federal government, would weigh the system down and take away the flexibility by which provincial expertise in different areas is available. We will see this later on.

Quebec's expertise is not just remedial in the matter of securities embezzlement, for example. It is not just a matter of getting the securities system to work, it is also a matter of intervening in the event of embezzlement, as occurred in Quebec. Preventive measures must be in place as well. This expertise belongs to Quebec alone. Other provinces draw on it. It proved effective just recently, as we saw, in the Norbourg affair.

There, as elsewhere, people sometimes manage to get round the system and abuse the power given them through the position they occupy. We saw this with Mr. Lacroix. We saw too that the system, when it operates as intended, is effective. The man is serving a 12 year sentence. I do not want to get into the ins and outs of this business, but members can see that the system works well.

People are trying to find similar examples in Canada, and despite big scandals, there is no sign that the proposed mechanism would address misconduct. The example has been given of centralized authorities, such as in the United States or France. My colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke of the United States. There was Enron, and other cases. Fraud still occurred. In France, a single person, a financial trader managed to misappropriate billions of dollars. The individual will no doubt stand trial. No system is infallible. The centralized system being presented to us as infallible and competitive on the international market is rubbish and will not stand up.

Let us look at what is working. What does work, and has been recognized by major international organizations like the OECD and the World Bank, is an efficient mechanism that performs well. Why change it? That is the whole entire point. Why indeed, if not to centralize in order to dominate in that area as well, limit the freedom to act, innovate and create in the field of financial products, and make sure that a financial centre outside Quebec is responsible for the overall management? The pussyfooting never ends.

When I hear our Conservative colleagues from Quebec make remarks like the one the member for Lévis—Bellechasse made earlier, I think it is shameful. I find it embarrassing. Eleven Conservative members of this House claim to hold the truth and know the way ahead based on the public opinion in Quebec. I remind the House that the Government of Quebec, the National Assembly, the major stakeholders and analysts in Quebec all say that it is not a good thing. Are they looking after the best interest of Quebec? No. I would like to repeat something the member for Jonquière—Alma and Minister of Labour said. He said that, in 1991, he voted a certain way as a member representing Quebec in Ottawa and that, now, he was representing Ottawa in Quebec. That is almost word for word what he said. That is a whole different ball game. It means making different choices and having different values. In addition, it is far from certain that the other provinces would appreciate Toronto controlling the entire management of securities across the country.

I want to recall briefly the AMF's mandate. Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers favours preventive management.

It has to assist financial institutions, look after them, supervise financial activities and ensure that protection and compensation programs are in place. These are all components that ought to be retained and that can only be managed by an organization of proximity whose expertise can be shared. In fact, that is already the case with the passport system, which is working well and allows this power over anything to do with securities and financial commitments to be exercised within each province while being shared.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who holds the absolute truth of course and knows everything. If he does know everything, he must undoubtedly know that the Montreal Exchange is negotiating with the Toronto Stock Exchange right now for the two organizations to share their expertise and to work together in some domains. He must know also that banks are developing a parallel network, to the Canadian exchange system, precisely to reduce costs and to be more competitive on the international markets.

Does my colleague deem it important to make sure that national bodies remain competitive in order to allow our businesses to get the capital they need to continue operating in an increasingly competitive market? If he cannot answer my question, he can tell me about his record. We are still waiting for it.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find unpleasant is that this member cannot ask a question without making innuendoes.

Here is my answer—and he better not try to prevent me from speaking like he did the other day. We are sending troops to Afghanistan to bring democracy to that country. If the member is unable to respect democracy in this House, Mr. Speaker, this time you should ask him to let me speak.

So here is my answer to his question. As always, he confuses things because he does not understand them. The Montreal Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange, that is one thing. There is a particular reasoning that applies when dealing with interests that are peculiar to the mandate of each one of these entities. We are talking here about the Autorité des marchés financiers, which deals with investments and shares, among other things. It is totally different.

There is a consensus now on the current analysis, even though the former leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Charest, now Premier of Quebec, did not share that view back then. He used to have the same questions as the Conservatives. Now that he sits at the provincial level, he has come to the realization that true effectiveness can only be achieved through a financial authority managed by each of the provinces, with shared expertise, as I was saying earlier.

The member should know that. If he does not, then he should ask someone who is knowledgeable in this field to explain it to him.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

I was a stockbroker for 12 years and a branch manager and I can say that one of the frustrations of the business for retail clients and companies was their inability to deal with provinces without an incredible amount of difficulty.

I just do not buy the argument that this is in the best interests of the people of the province of Quebec because, frankly, it is not. They are investors like anybody else. They own companies like anybody else. They want to deal with the rest of the Canada like anybody else.

I put it to my colleague that, in my view, this is more about protecting turf than it is about actually serving the interests of investors and companies.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is partly right. When he says that this is not in the best interest of the other provinces, he must be speaking of only one province, namely Ontario, because the others all agree with us. It would be in the best interest of Ontario, though, because business will be carried out there.

The hon. member has worked in the field of financial markets. I have been an entrepreneur myself and I liked it better to have my business activities supervised by Quebec than by Canada. Why? Because Quebec uses proximity management and, if and when it has to step in, it does so through a direct guarantor. No need to go through Ottawa or Toronto only to have them tell Quebec what to do.

That is precisely what Ms. Jérôme-Forget emphasized in her letter to the Minister of Finance, when she wrote:

Accordingly, I will continue to oppose the implementation of any model leading to the concentration of market oversight responsibilities in the hands of a common or single regulator, regardless of how you call it.

That is what Ms. Jérôme-Forget wrote in her reply on behalf of Quebec and Premier Charest, who is a former Conservative leader. He has realized that the best interest of the provinces and Quebec is not served, and especially not that of financiers, by a centralized body.

She added:

—the federal government could apply its energies much more productively if, in its fields of jurisdiction, it worked to more effectively crack down on economic crime rather than trying—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. I thank him for sharing his time with me.

I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and to re-read the motion introduced today by my brilliant colleague, our finance critic. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately abandon the idea of creating a common securities regulator, since securities regulations fall under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and because this initiative is unanimously condemned in Quebec.

I am all particularly proud that there is only one party that can rise in this House and introduce such a motion because there is only one party that defends the interests of Quebeckers every day. It is not the few members of the other parties. It is not the New Democrat member for Outremont. It is not the Liberal Party members for Bourassa or Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. Even less is it the Conservative members for Lévis—Bellechasse, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Jonquière—Alma and Louis-Hébert. Those are not the people who will stand up to defend the interests of Quebeckers. It is the members of the Bloc Québécois. This is even more important because this situation in Quebec has been analyzed and examined. The Quebec National Assembly made a decision to condemn this position.

That is not what I am hearing from the Conservative members. According to them, it is as though Quebec did not know where it was going. I just listened to a Conservative member stand up and tell us that. In their Canadian Constitution, this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That is the reality. If there is a problem with the Constitution, they know what they have to do: reopen it and renegotiate it. They will never dare to do that and that is the reality.

Obviously, for more than 40 years, the government has, from time to time, tried to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, especially when it comes to securities. But this has become even more evident since the new Minister of Finance took up his duties. It is no secret that he has his eye on the leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party. That is the hard truth. He can afford to criticize the Premier of Ontario. But he is pushing a plan to centralize securities in Ontario. So all the Conservative members who are saying that there is nothing political about this should look at the political interests of the finance minister. It is in his political interest to transfer all the securities to Ontario, because he dreams of becoming the Premier of Ontario. Quebeckers will not be fooled, or at least not the Quebeckers who are able to stand up for what they believe in—the members of the Bloc Québécois in this House. We can see what the finance minister is trying to do.

Obviously, within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, no one has been fooled by this attack. We will always be ready to stand up and denounce this position. That is why Quebeckers have elected us, to defend their interests and their values. Speaking of values, financial values are among those that Quebeckers want to see protected. Securities fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers or AMF is in charge of regulating financial markets. That works very well.

In a cross-Canada context, we know there is the so-called passport system, which works very well. That is to say that between the provinces, except for Ontario, which has decided to go its own way for political reasons, there is this passport system that allows for a coordinated approach in applying the law. It offers uniform protection for investors. This system enables each securities regulator to develop its own approach and areas of expertise. That makes it possible to have different but complementary approaches to compliance with the regulations by those affected. This different but complementary critical vision, while more onerous, makes it easier to detect and prevent scandals such we have seen in the United States, where these issues are submitted to a centralized authority. It is a benefit for investors. So, the Conservative position is difficult to understand.

Again, Quebec conducted a study and a second assessment, and, on October 16 of last year, the National Assembly decided to condemn this federal government's initiative. All parties, whether sovereignist or federalist, unanimously passed the following motion:

That the National Assembly ask the federal government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project.

That is as clear as could be. Quebec has decided to keep its powers in its own jurisdictions, and also its system, which is considered by the international community to be one of the world's most effective.

The fact that Conservative members were lead in that direction by their finance minister, who wants to run Ontario, is their problem. I find it much harder to understand why the Liberals are letting themselves be swayed in that direction. However, considering how they have been behaving in recent weeks, let us remain polite and say that this is just yet another contradiction. However, Bloc Québécois members will not be fooled, and they are going to defend firmly and strongly the position unanimously adopted by Quebec's National Assembly. That is why we tabled this motion. We hope that members from all parties in this House will clearly realize that, under the Canadian Constitution, securities are a provincial jurisdiction, and that they must respect the Constitution. I think they believe in the Constitution, since they patriated it. At the time, Quebec decided not to participate in that event. I hope they will now act in accordance with the Constitution that they wanted, and that they will respect provincial jurisdictions. The position of Quebec's National Assembly could not be clearer. Its motion, which was carried unanimously, asks the Government of Canada to abandon its way of doing things. I am going to read it once again, to ensure that it is clearly understood:

That the National Assembly ask the federal government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project.

That motion was passed on October 16, 2007, not 15 or 20 years ago.

I hope my colleagues understand that the members of the National Assembly and the people who helped draft this motion are very familiar with their responsibilities given that this falls in their area of jurisdiction.

Quebec will always be a leader in Canada, at least until we have a country of our own. Once again, we have blazed the trail. Every time that Canada has wanted to push Quebec back, it has found Quebec in its path. And every time that the federalist parties in the House want to push Quebec back, they will find the Bloc Québécois in their path. It is the only party that can stop them from pushing us back. That is what the Conservative Party wants, with the help of the Liberals. It wants to push us back in the securities file. They will find us in their path in Quebec.

This is all the more important in view of the fact that Quebec is unanimous about it, for historical reasons but also to protect its interests. The Autorité des marchés financiers is the final barrier to the disappearance of all stock markets from Montreal after the acquisition of the exchange by Toronto. It was not for no reason at all that the National Assembly came to this conclusion. The reason for blocking this pan-Canadian regulator is simply to protect Quebec’s interests.

The Autorité des marchés financiers has the regulatory authority to require a stock exchange in Montreal. The AMF oversees the exchange and establishes the rules by which it operates, including the percentage of shares held, etc.

The Quebec National Assembly wanted to protect its authority over securities and that is why a unanimous resolution was passed. That is why the only members who can really defend Quebec’s interests rose up today and tabled the motion of our learned colleague, the Bloc financial critic.

Once again we ask the other members to help protect Quebec’s financial authority. If they fail to do so, they will pay the price.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my Bloc Québécois colleague is well aware that we have the equivalent of 13 AMFs in Canada. Members of the Bloc also talked about the passport system.

However, there is a problem: the system works everywhere but in Toronto. We also all know that Toronto represents over 80% of Canada's dollar volume. That means that a company in Quebec that wants access to capital has to apply to the Toronto Stock Exchange.

What is being proposed today is to remove the only way that Quebec entrepreneurs can gain access to capital across the country. I should clarify that the reason Quebec entrepreneurs trade publicly is that they want access to capital. The Bloc Québécois wants to remove the only way for Quebec to gain access to capital in Toronto.

Can my colleague explain why he wants to take away Quebec's ability to participate in this field? I do not understand.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like my colleague to know that according to the OECD's most recent economic outlook, Canada is ranked second for its securities regulation. Moreover, in its report on financial systems around the world, the World Bank ranked Canada as a leader in the area of securities trading.

So much for his theory that Quebec is shooting itself in the foot in terms of investment and availability of capital. Once again, this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

The member for Louis-Hébert should mind his own business. That is the problem. The National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution. I will spare him a reading of the letter from the finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, to the federal finance minister.

However, he should know that the leader of the ADQ, his mentor, supports this. This seems to be making the Conservative members from Quebec uncomfortable. It is time, people, to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue along that path.

It is unacceptable that members who represent the interests of Quebec here in Ottawa and who have been elected as Conservatives will not vote in favour of the motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois today to protect the integrity of Quebec's financial authorities. it is totally unacceptable.

As my Bloc colleague and transport critic said earlier, it is not only the Bloc Québécois who is calling for that, but also the political players in Quebec: the National Assembly, the ADQ, the Liberals, the Parti Québécois, etc.

How can a member elected by the people of Quebec rise in this House and go against the idea of Quebec keeping its autonomy and maintaining jurisdiction over financial markets and securities?

I was the only candidate from my party to be elected in the immediate vicinity of Quebec City, opposite the north shore, in the area that includes Quebec City and its suburbs, except for my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. In the next election, I will be able to say that those members opposite voted against Quebec's interests.

I would like an explanation on that.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Québec for her excellent work. What the Conservative members from Quebec do not understand is that the Minister of Finance is trying to win a game in Ontario. That is the essence of the problem. The Minister of Finance wants to become the premier of Ontario and has decided to table a policy on securities to promote the interests of Ontario, while attacking the Premier of Ontario and saying that Ontario is not a good place to invest. Imagine that.

The Conservative members from Quebec, men and women, are taking part in this tug of war game played the Minister of Finance, who is positioning himself for his next election campaign in Ontario. I am very much concerned about this. On the other hand, I understand that, with their lack of political ability, Conservative members cannot see what is going on.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlottetown.

First, I congratulate the Bloc on this motion. This is an important issue, and having chosen the subject, the Bloc has come armed with good arguments. Although I do not agree with the view taken by the Bloc members on this issue, I have to admit they have done their homework. My only reservation about the Bloc’s position in this regard is that we are hearing the same refrain. No matter what the subject is, no matter what the issue, it is always the same refrain. As many powers as possible have to be given back to Quebec. That is obviously the guiding principle of the party.

I think we have to go back to the principle that Canada is a country. We are not a country so that everybody can withdraw to their corner and tend to their own business. We are a country because we share certain values. Whether the Bloc wants to admit it or not, Canadians who live outside Quebec share the same values as Quebeckers with the Quebec people, the Quebec nation, as some are fond of repeating. That is why we work together on all kinds of things. We have to go back to that idea. Why are we a country? To share our wealth, and not just our natural resources or our monetary resources through an equalization system. We have to share our ideas and work together, sometimes in the same institution, as the Bloc in fact does. The Bloc works here in this House, shares this place with colleagues from across Canada. We must forge ahead and work together with others in the same system, in the same institution. Because we are hearing the same refrain, we have to ask ourselves a question: does the argument have merit? I am not saying they have not made good arguments and they have not taken the question seriously, but it seems to me that it is always the same refrain.

The same thing can be said of the NDP. In fact it is not entirely the same thing, because it quite often acts contrary to its guiding principles. The NDP is chasing the same votes as the Bloc, so it tries to position itself as the great defender of “decentralization”, like the Bloc. But we know that in the past it was always a very centralist party and it still is on some issues. Seeing the NDP switching tracks like this undermines its credibility somewhat. I would tell my colleagues in the NDP not to chase the same votes as the Bloc, because that will get them nowhere.

Listening to the speeches by the NDP members and the speeches by the Bloc members describing federalists, particularly those in the official opposition, as dedicated centralizers, and even colonizers—I do not know whether I have yet heard the word “imperialist”, but it may come up at some point—I thought I was back in political science class at university in the 1970s. It is not a matter of being a centralizer. The idea of creating an integrated system to regulate securities in Canada is a matter of effectiveness. Our colleagues in the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus have explained this.

I was rather disappointed by the finance minister's speech on this. He should have taken the opportunity to sing the praises of a cross Canada system to regulate securities, but instead he took the opportunity to deliver, once again, his miserable budget. He spoke of his savings plan. I do not think the plan will be very effective. It will not channel much capital towards the investment Canada so badly needs. I understand my Bloc colleagues' fears. How can a government that delivered such a washed out, miserable and thin budget set in motion a national securities system? I understand my Bloc colleagues' concern.

One of the main challenges facing Canada's economy is to attract capital. It has always been a problem. The NDP has recognized this in the past. Obviously it has changed its message, because it is targeting the same votes as the Bloc Québécois in Quebec. The NDP has always recognized that it has always been a challenge for Canadian industry to attract capital. And so, in the past, provincial and federal governments have had to get involved. This is why there are more government corporations in Canada than in the United States. The government has to find a way to channel capital. This is a fact of Canada's economic history. We have to compete with the United States. The biggest capitalist economy in the world is not a decentralized federal system like ours, but a highly integrated and truly centralized one. It is very effective for investors. We have to compete with this country, and Wall Street is only a few hundred kilometres from here. We must become more effective on the stock markets and investment markets, or we will once again have a hard time keeping our capital and attracting new. For this reason, we must proceed with the help of experts who are not politicians.

As I said earlier, I am not totally convinced that we can trust the government and this Minister of Finance to put the proposed system in place. We must turn to the experts, who will tell us how to design an effective system that will compete with our neighbours, the United States, and respect regional interests in Canada. It seems simple and logical to me.

I would like to address as well an argument raised by the member for Outremont. He compared provincial societies that govern the professions, such as medicine, architecture and engineering. That strikes me as fairly obvious, and I am sure that my colleagues recognize the evidence. I do not understand why the NDP has a hard time recognizing it. There are human beings, who are not as mobile as capital. And then there is the national securities—capital—system. Capital travels everywhere fairly easily. This is why greater effectiveness is needed at the national level—to better compete with international capital.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for his thoughtful speech. First of all, in this case, we are not calling for jurisdiction to be given back. Jurisdiction of this financial matter already belongs to the provinces. It is enshrined in the Constitution.

It is somewhat incomprehensible that the Conservative government finally agreed to recognize Quebec as a nation, as a result of the Bloc Québécois' request and motion. At the same time, it wants to remove one of Quebec's powers in one of the only areas in which it has a voice internationally. Quebec is taking part in debates with the international financial association. It has a voice at the table. The Conservative minister's plan would mean taking away that voice.

I urge my colleague to instead think about how he could make a better decision as a member from Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly is not governed by a sovereigntist party, but rather by a federalist party, the Quebec Liberal Party. All parties represented in the National Assembly—the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Parti Québécois and the Action démocratique du Québec—agree that the Minister of Finance's plan must be stopped.

Thus, is it not his responsibility to go along with the unanimous will of Quebeckers, as indicated by the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. Obviously, I understand the difference between repatriating powers and respecting the powers granted to the provinces by the Constitution. I thought I made that distinction, but perhaps I did not emphasize it enough. It is a matter of law.

I would like to point out, however, that the members of the Wise Persons’ Committee, an independent body that reviewed securities regulation in Canada, concluded that the Constitution did in fact give the federal government the power to regulate capital markets, pursuant to section 91.2 concerning the regulation of trade and commerce.

That being said, clearly, one must be very careful when creating a system, for no one wants to wind up before the Supreme Court and have it throw out the system because it does not comply with the Constitution. Accordingly, one must be very careful when creating a system.

Given my role as a member from Quebec, like any member of this House who knows his or her riding well, I believe that, if I were to walk into a Tim Hortons or down the street in my riding and raise this question, a large majority of my fellow citizens would be in favour of this proposal for a national securities system.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert for a brief question.