House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.

Topics

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the trouble with Conservatives is that they always like to throw out these numbers, pretend there is nothing wrong and say that they are giving all this money away.

The fact is that on the health transfer issue, despite the fact that Manitoba is getting a larger share than before, it was not getting what it was entitled to because of the way in which the government applied arbitrarily a formula that took significant dollars away from a number of provinces. This comes directly from the Province of Manitoba and other provincial governments that experienced this unfortunate news on the day that the budget was announced. The member will know that what I said in the House was that British Columbia loses $106 million, Quebec loses $83 million, Newfoundland and Labrador lose $78 million, Alberta loses $38 million and my home province of Manitoba loses $13 million, which only adds to the problems of patient waiting times and lineups at hospitals.

The government is always good at trying to pretend it is giving so much and then it turns around and finds a way to hurt provinces and hurt health care in the long run.

On the question of the national securities commission, members on this side are not talking out of two sides of their mouth at once. We have always said that we need a comprehensive securities system in this country. It does not make sense to have simply a national securities regulator if the government is not prepared to move forward on a number of issues that will get at the excesses and the corruption that exists in the investment and financial industries now.

It is time the government recognized that it cannot get away with a simple little band-aid at the last minute. It needs to work with Parliament and the Canadian people to come up with a comprehensive package because time is running out and people are hurting.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech. As usual, she presented some amazing arguments. I would like her to present more of them.

As you know, this Conservative government introduced itself at the beginning of its first mandate as a government that would meet its commitments and keep its word. All governments say the same, but shortly after it was elected, the present government started breaking its promises on many issues.

I object to this way of presenting policies as if they were products to be marketed, like in a grocery store where a jar of pickles is labelled “new and improved”. This government tried to pull the same trick and sell new and improved pickles. But, obviously, its policies are far from new and improved.

In the Maritimes, a Conservative member now sits as an independent because the government did not keep its promise on natural resources. Newfoundland and Labrador has decided along with its premier, who campaigned during the election, to get rid of all the Conservatives in the province. In Quebec, Minister Monique Jérôme-Forget also said that this government did not keep its word.

Does the hon. member have more examples she would like to give us?

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. It is like a jar of pickles that has a new and improved label on it. We think we are getting something better than what the Liberals offered us but when we open up the jar of Conservative pickles they are more sour than the last jar we tasted. That is exactly what we are dealing with.

Neither party in government were prepared to do the job, whether it was financing valuable programs in terms of health, social policy, housing or aboriginal affairs, or whether it was protecting consumers and getting tough on corporations that try to take advantage of ordinary people. Both parties ignored their mandates and neglected Canadians and we are now paying the price.

What we aimed to achieve today was to begin to straighten out the mess that has been created by both parties, to try to bring some sense to them and hope that together we can work and define a meaningful system in terms of financing provinces or in terms of regulating securities, which would make a big difference for all Canadians.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell you I will share my time with my friend from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who does a wonderful job for his fellow citizens.

I am pleased to take the floor this afternoon to inform you and invite you--

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to interrupt my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse, but I spent the afternoon here, and when members such as the member for Québec were speaking, I noticed that members from all parties were polite enough to listen. However, as the member for Lévis—Bellechasse was speaking, there was a terrible uproar from the benches of the Bloc Québécois. I would like politeness to be equal on both sides for those who are interested in knowing what is being discussed in the House.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I am not sure that is a point of order but I do share all members' sentiment that we ought to show respect to one another in this place and I look forward to the presentation from the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I seize this opportunity to thank my colleague from Ottawa—Orléans for his intervention. He works very hard for the people in his riding.

This afternoon, I would like to say that it is important to strongly oppose this motion, with its outrageous content, which underplays the excellent budget presented in this House. Unfortunately, I see that some members do not support it. Nevertheless, I support it, my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles supports it, my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans supports it as well and, of course, my colleagues on this side of the House all support it.

I am rising this afternoon because I want what is best for businesses in Bellechasse, Les Etchemins and Lévis when they are looking for capital. I have especially in mind the Davie shipyard, whose stocks are doing very well these days. I want these businesses from my riding to be able to access the financial market as quickly as possible and with a minimum number of obstacles to overcome. They should be able to obtain the capital which is so important, particularly during these uncertain economic times.

I believe it is important to act, and that is what our government is doing, while respecting areas of jurisdiction and taking a voluntary approach. Since we were first elected, we have been working together with the provinces to institute a simplified, more efficient system for regulating securities in order to bolster our financial stability, protect investors and of course, be accountable.

We currently have 13 commissions and it is difficult to act quickly. We saw during the crucial events in September 2008 that our counterparts elsewhere in the world, including in the United States and the United Kingdom, were temporarily restricting the short selling of certain shares in the financial services industry in order to ensure market stability. Our interventions in Canada were late in comparison with other countries and there were some differences. Our system was not necessarily very efficient. It is important, especially in times of economic uncertainty, to be particularly efficient in order to provide and maintain a competitive advantage.

Canada is also working with its partners in the G7 and G20 to deal with the systemic risks to the financial industry. We have a healthy financial sector in Canada and we want to keep it that way.

Third, it is very expensive to keep multiple commissions going. What we want is to eliminate the barriers and have the most efficient system possible. If we take the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, for instance, they will say that they want a more efficient system. We want to ensure that the efficiency and vitality of our financial sector is not diminished by governmental quarrels. What business people tell us is they want an effective, efficient system. They do not want to be the object of squabbles over flags or parliamentary disputes. That is why it is important to vote this motion down today and to vote in favour of the budget.

The support for improving our system comes from far beyond our borders. Last year, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development stated that multiple regulatory systems made it hard to maximize efficiency and there was a mounting danger that companies would choose securities in other countries. The report said, “A single regulatory authority...would eliminate the inefficiencies created by the limited enforcement authority of individual provincial agencies”. What the OECD was telling us, as the Government of Canada, is that we should assume our responsibilities and make sure that our companies can access financial and credit markets and that we should eliminate the barriers that are harming them.

Contrary to what our colleagues in the opposition are saying, the creation of a single commission is not an intrusion. This is a voluntary initiative.

Those provinces and territories who wish to do so may join the organization, but they do not have to. In fact, several provinces have already indicated their desire to work together with us during these challenging economic and fiscal times.

The senior vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, Mr. Marcel Boyer, said:

A single securities commission with a strong regional presence would favourably resolve the complex issue of regulating securities in Canada—

Decentralizing to non-exclusive offices that are nevertheless able to influence for the best a single securities commission would promote innovation and efficiency in terms of financial market regulation while at the same time ensuring de facto mutual recognition of regional sensitivities and distinctive features.

We are realizing, thanks to the G7 and G20 countries in particular, that our system needs to be improved and upgraded. This way, our businesses will enjoy the same opportunities and rapid access to capital markets as those from other countries.

How can one be against common sense and local businesses from Quebec, Prince Edward Island or the Yukon having access to capital markets Canada-wide without having to go through 13 different authorities and getting bogged down by bureaucracy?

Here is an opportunity to simplify the process while respecting everyone's areas of jurisdiction, as was clearly pointed out.

I could go on and on this afternoon about the importance of passing the budget, taking concrete action to support our economy and continuing to ensure that our businesses can benefit.

I will gladly answer questions on this topic.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a bit sad when a member from Quebec runs down his province and his fellow citizens. I can understand that a member should follow his party’s line, when it has members throughout Canada, but it seems to me he should try to keep quiet, and not go overboard.

My colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse talked about common sense. The Canadian securities commission he offers as a solution is very good. It is great.

But how come the 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly are all against it? There are not just a bunch of nasty separatists, since they also include the Quebec premier, a federalist as far as I know, members of the ADQ, Québec solidaire, and the Parti Québécois, Monique Jérôme-Forget, the unions and the employers.

Everybody objects to the hon. member’s securities commission. Apparently, everybody is wrong but the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse. They all lack common sense. Just 10 people are right in Quebec, and those are the Conservative members. Come on. It does not make sense.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge my friend from the Jeanne-Le Ber riding. He is also a professional engineer. And we need people from this profession in this House. They get some nice training, and we need men and women who embrace this career if we are to promote the knowledge economy in this country.

Let me bring a couple of important points to my colleague’s attention. First, equalization is a system we use in this country to redistribute wealth. With this budget, equalization payments to Quebec will reach new heights.

I urge my colleague to support this budget so that we can transfer $8.3 billion to Quebec. Unlike the previous government, which cut equalization and forced Quebec to make cuts in health and education, we keep increasing equalization payments because we think it is important. We will keep working for Quebec.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse a question.

As far as acceptance of the national securities commission, which they are telling us is such a great thing, is concerned, I would like to hear an explanation of why, in its most recent economic survey, the OECD is currently ranking Canada second for the quality of its securities regulation, with the current system. There must be a reason for that. In addition, in a study of global financial systems, the World Bank ranked Canada as a leader in securities trading. There are others, but I have selected just those two.

I would like someone to explain to me why the Conservatives do not agree with the assessments by those international bodies?

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. I am glad that he has referred to the OECD, because it is precisely that very body, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, that is telling us we need to improve our system because there are some problems.

As I have said, the OECD feels it is difficult to maximize efficiency. There are risks, namely that companies here would abandon our system and go elsewhere. For our part, we want to retain the companies that continue to have access to our markets and use our organizations. So that is very important.

I would also like to remind the hon. member that Canada is the only industrialized country that does not gone for the option of a single securities regulator. It is high time, in 2009, that we caught up with others as far as our institutions are concerned, and that we provided the best financial tools so that our companies can continue to thrive and we can keep our workers employed in our businesses in Quebec and Canada.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles Québec

Conservative

Daniel Petit ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, as custom dictates, in light of the fact that I have been elected a second time, I would like to salute all the citizens of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who have placed their trust in me.

I today invite my colleagues to do likewise and reject the Bloc’s motion because it is against the interests of Quebec. Our measures in this budget are perfectly consistent with the spirit of open federalism that underpins our overall approach toward restoring the fiscal balance. I invite my colleagues to examine our record in this regard. The facts are most eloquent.

First of all, the government is fully honouring its commitment to pay the provinces increasing, long-term transfers to restore the fiscal balance. The federal transfers have never been so high, and they will continue to increase. The Canada health transfer is increasing by 6% per year, and the Canada social transfer by 3% per year. Federal infrastructure support to the provinces is at record highs. Equalization today stands at $14.2 billion, compared with $8.7 billion in 2003-04 under the Liberal government.

Second, Quebec is the province that has benefited the most from the measures we have taken to restore the fiscal balance. Far from decreasing, Quebec’s equalization payments and total transfers are at historic highs and continue to rise, but the Bloc persists in tabling its motion against the population of Quebec. Transfers to Quebec for equalization alone have risen 74% since 2005-06, placing the province far in the lead of the recipient provinces in terms of the increase in these transfers.

Equalization has been very advantageous for Quebeckers over the years, and the government has worked energetically to ensure that this program continues to grow in a sustainable and equitable manner. The measures it has taken were necessary because of the unprecedented and unexpected volatility in commodity prices in recent months.

As my colleagues know, just after the introduction of the 2007 equalization formula, commodity prices steadily increased, with oil prices tripling in a few months before plummeting 75% in the middle of 2008. These exceptionally high resource prices pushed up the costs of equalization, and under the effect of the new formula, they would have continued to push them up for years. If nothing had been done, equalization costs would have risen over $26 billion over the next five years. This pace of growth was clearly unsustainable, and the government would have had a lot of difficulty avoiding a long-term structural deficit.

When it submitted its final report on equalization, upon which the new program is based, the O'Brien panel of independent experts could not imagine that oil prices would reach $150 a barrel or that Ontario would become eligible for equalization. But that is what happened, and it could weigh heavily on future charges. On the other hand, the O'Brien panel recognized that the equalization program could well pose certain problems. It came up with some very wise advice in this regard, which can be found on page 43 of this final equalization report.

The O'Brien report recognizes that the long-run sustainability of the equalization formula is the Government of Canada's responsibility. We are taking this responsibility seriously and we are acting accordingly. I want to emphasize the fact that these measures do not reflect any reduction in equalization payments. In fact, these changes are only meant to ensure that the growth of the program follows that of the economy. They set a threshold to avoid a contraction of the whole program, and they provide transitional protection to offset their impact on the provinces benefiting from equalization, including Quebec.

The provinces were informed of these changes at the finance ministers' meeting held in Toronto, on November 3. They even got advance notice regarding their rights to equalization for 2009-10, to allow them to plan their budgets on solid ground.

Even if these changes recently generated a broad political debate that was strictly academic and only served to create dissension, I want to point out that they had been welcomed when they were first announced at the finance ministers' meeting, back in November.

In fact, at a press conference that followed the meeting, the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mrs. Jérôme-Forget, said that these changes were “reasonable”. They are indeed, particularly under the circumstances that all governments are facing because of this serious global economic recession.

That is why we are defending the changes that we made to ensure the equalization's viability. And we are also defending the way that we implemented these changes.

On behalf of all Canadians from all provinces, including Quebec, I am asking my fellow members to do likewise, to reject this motion—which goes against Quebec's interests—and to support our budget.

I have here many statements made by various groups from Quebec that support the measures proposed in our budget. For example, the Quebec City chamber of commerce said:

The moneys committed by the federal government to infrastructures will certainly have a quick and significant impact on the economy—The personal income tax reduction is also a good measure that will stimulate the economy, just like the rebates for renovations and for first time home buyers.

But they voted against those measures.

Also, François Dupuis, chief economist at the Desjardins group, which is in the riding represented by the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, said the following:

—we believe that the measures proposed by Ottawa will work. The government is hitting several targets at once. For families, this is a breath of fresh air.

They are voting against it.

Norma Kozhaya, research director and chief economist with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, said:

I think that these are good measures both for the short term, given the recession, and for long-term positioning in terms of making businesses more competitive, getting people back to work and increasing taxpayers' purchasing power.

They are voting against it.

The president of the Coalition pour le renouvellement des infrastructures du Québec and mayor of the City of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt, said:

This budget takes into account the reality of an economy that is going through a recession and responds to the Coalition's repeated demands for more funding to help municipalities accomplish their mission, undertake work to upgrade and renew basic infrastructure, and ensure safe, adequate services for citizens. The new funding program will enable municipalities to plan infrastructure more effectively.

They are voting against it.

The Rivière-du-Loup RCM's chamber of commerce said:

This is extremely good news for the RCM of Rivière-du-Loup.

They are voting against it.

The Alliance des Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec said:

The federal government's budget [...] puts forward measures that will help the manufacturing sector and stimulate the Canadian economy [...] The 2009 budget [...] includes a number of positive measures that will help our businesses during this time of crisis. These measures must be implemented as quickly as possible.

They are voting against it.

We should listen to these groups, reject this anti-Quebec motion, and pass the Budget Implementation Act as soon as possible.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to our colleague cite a variety of interventions relating to the budget and the measures proposed. I would like to ask him if he read the letter to the finance minister from the Quebec finance minister. In it, she expresses her opposition and that of the entire National Assembly. She also refers to a unanimous resolution by the National Assembly, which is completely critical of the proposals contained in the Conservative budget. These proposals would unilaterally amend the equalization formula, which would deprive Quebec of $991 million next year alone. There is also a plan to create a single securities commission.

The member spoke of a series of interventions along the lines he would like, but the majority of the members of the National Assembly still support the remarks Ms. Jérôme-Forget made in her letter. Has he read it?

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would point out to him that equalization will increase and that it will reach the figure of $8.9 billion. The province of Quebec has held the record in equalization payments since 1981, some $4 billion annually.

Furthermore, I would point out that he can read an article in the Globe and Mail, which discusses a single commission and which states that, had one existed, there might not have been the problem with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Tomorrow, we will lose $38 billion, because they do not want to join us.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, what disdain for Quebec institutions. Always the “Ottawa knows best” attitude, ever paternalistic federalism telling the 125 members from Quebec, who ably represent the interests of Quebeckers, that they are wrong, that the 10 Conservative members from Quebec know what is good for Quebec, and that the rest of Quebec is wrong.

In his intervention, the member spoke at length on what we are voting against. I will tell him whom he is voting against this evening. He is voting against the 125 members of the National Assembly who voted unanimously in favour of the very text of the motion we present today. He is voting against Pierre Arcand, Vincent Auclair, Jean-Martin Aussant, Claude Bachand, Raymond Bachand, Line Beauchamp, Denise Beaudoin, Louise Beaudoin, Claude Béchard, Stéphane Bédard--

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for listing those names. I can tell you that, indeed, Quebec will not lose any equalization payments. We are coming out on top.

The problem is that we need a motion. Bloc members make Quebeckers believe just about anything. The difference is that we had to work to get these results. They never prepared a simple budget in their whole life. They never had any responsibility in their whole life. But for us, we have to live with what we are going to do.

We had to negotiate to get the $8.8 billion that will be given out. That is why I am telling you that this motion goes against the interest of Quebec and people in Quebec. All they are doing is voting for the rich without doing anything for the poor.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles read out quotations from several reports, and I also heard several people’s opinions

For his information, I would like to refer to an article concerning remarks of his about some Quebeckers who, incidentally, are artists. The hon. member said that Conservative members were not all that buddy-buddy with artists, that that was not what they were about and that that was $2 billion spent by all workers so artists could entertain them.

Indeed, when you say that the Bloc Quebecois is not standing up for Quebeckers, with remarks such as these--

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I would like to mention that we are working today for this budget, and it must be passed. We should try to defeat this motion. That is why I am asking all my colleagues to vote against this motion because it is against people in Quebec.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by advising you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

Today is a Bloc Québécois opposition day. We introduced a motion that calls upon the government to immediately renounce two measures contained in the recent budget, namely the establishment of a national securities commission and the unilateral amendment of the equalization formula. This places in perspective the debate we have just endured. I use that word because of all the inequities and falsehoods that we have heard in the past thirty minutes or so.

If we opposed the federal budget of this past February, it is in part because of those two measures. The present government is an expert at forcing Quebeckers to swallow one insult after another. I am coming to realize that more and more. These two measures constitute the biggest, ugliest and most disgusting load of insults yet. I must also point out that the Quebec National Assembly has passed a unanimous motion against those two measures.

I will limit my comments to the national securities commission, because my colleague will be addressing the matter of equalization. There has been talk of the national securities commission for 40 years now. People need to be given an explanation of what this commission is, and what securities are.

Securities are negotiable and transferable instruments that can be listed on the stock exchange. These are stocks and bonds, certificates of investment and warrants. All of these financial components fall under provincial jurisdiction, as is clearly set out in subsection 92(13) of the 1867 Constitution Act . We have just heard my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse say that this did not constitute any encroachment into provincial areas of jurisdiction. That is absolutely wrong, because management of this commission and these securities is a wholly provincial area of jurisdiction.

In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the agency responsible for regulating securities and ensuring that companies issuing securities do so according to the rules. For example, a company looking to issue a series of shares on the Quebec stock market has to abide by the rules set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers to ensure that everything is done according to the rules.

Each province has this system for stocks, bonds and securities. An agreement between the provinces sets up a passport system. If, for example, a Quebec business issues shares under the authority of the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec, it can do business with citizens of other provinces that follow the passport system. This business is legal. There is one province that does not follow the passport system, and it is Ontario.

People have been talking about creating a single securities commission for 40 years. In 2003, the Liberals put together a panel of experts to examine the possibility of establishing a single agency in Canada. In 2006, the Conservative government put the idea in its budget and economic update and repeated it in its 2007 budget. In June 2007, the current Minister of Finance set up a working group to study the effectiveness of the current system. However, in September 2007, it changed the group's mandate so the latter would examine how to create a single regulator. That was in 2007.

What did it do in 2008? It gave this committee $150 million to set up a Canada-wide securities commission. That was quite an affront.

They recognized Quebec as a nation. A nation must manage its assets, make its laws and govern itself. If Quebec is recognized as a nation, then interfering in its jurisdictions is not respectful. It shows a lack of respect. It is meddling. It will cause the loss of hundreds, even thousands of jobs in Quebec because it will lead to the disappearance of stock exchange activities in Montreal. There will no longer be any offices in Montreal. Everything will be concentrated, probably on Bay Street, in Ontario. At that point we will bow down to Bay Street.

I would remind members that this budget gave millions of dollars to Ontario's auto industry whereas we had to accept crumbs for our forestry and manufacturing industries. Creating a single securities regulator is another slap in the face to Quebec. At present, the securities commissions of Quebec and the provinces have a voice at the International Organization of Securities Commissions. That is a voice for Quebec on the international stage. That voice will be silenced. We want to continue to be heard.

The OECD currently puts Canada in second place when it comes to the regulation of securities. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank feel that Canada has a regulatory framework that is “sophisticated” , “highly effective” and “nearly unified” . The report also mentions “sufficient resources and skilled personnel” and says that the system is “clearly accountable to the government”. As well, it says that the framework is solid and that costs are minimal. The International Monetary Fund and World bank are not stupid. So when the government says that this will cost less and work better, I do not believe it. There are people who have spoken about this.

We should be wondering what the real factor is that is motivating Canada's Minister of Finance to centralize the securities commission and establish a single entity for Canada. If it is not to concentrate money in Ontario and, once again, to try and silence Quebec, what could it be?

The Bloc Québécois motion is forthright, direct and honest. We simply want to protect Quebec and Quebeckers. If we are recognized as a nation, we should have our needs recognized and be respected ourselves.

I am asking all the Quebec members in this House to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion that aims to protect jobs and protect who we are.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

In fact, she talked about a very important point of our motion. Earlier, someone mentioned the good reputation our present securities regulation system has in the international arena. I would like to come back to that and ask the hon. member how the International Organization of Securities Commissions can declare that ours is the best system. Since the Constitution says that securities are a provincial jurisdiction and that has been recognized, that gives us a right, that gives us a say because Quebec has its Commission des valeurs mobilières. If that was to disappear, Quebec would lose its right to speak.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that subject.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that extremely important question.

Quebec's right to speak outside Canada troubles many people, especially the members from other provinces. It is obvious that Quebec has always been proactive and that it always exerted its influence abroad. At one point, Canada began to exert its influence abroad, and we only have to go back in history to see how much of that influence is attributable to Quebec. Canada has always followed Quebec initiatives. Quebec has very often opened the doors for Canadian companies and served as an example for the rest of Canada.

In that sense, depriving Quebec of its right to exert its influence abroad would deprive it of a voice, would deprive it of a means to be self sufficient and to acquire capital. That is important. As is implied in my colleague's question, Quebec's influence abroad is also Canadian influence abroad and Canadians should think about that. I wonder where Canada would be without Quebec.

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent presentation. She demonstrated once again that, regardless of who is in office in this Parliament, whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, they are never able to address the legitimate aspirations of Quebec. These aspirations are presented to the House of Commons by the Bloc Québécois, but sovereignists are not the only ones who are defending them. The motion that we tabled today in this House is a reflection of two motions that were unanimously passed by the National Assembly.

If, as is the case, Quebeckers are never able to influence decisions in this House based on what they unanimously believe, what solution do they have left to truly take control of their destiny, to vote their own laws, to manage all of their money and to represent themselves on the world stage?

Opposition motion—Securities commission and equalizationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Of course, I have always given that answer to everyone. Whenever Quebec's privileges are denied, whenever a lack of respect is shown towards Quebec, it stirs up Quebeckers' feelings and it gives them an opportunity to see how strong this contempt for their specificity can be.

In this case, we are talking about a request made by the whole National Assembly, by its 125 members, including the Premier of Quebec. I respect him, even if we do not share the same political stripe. He has his advisors, he knows where he is going, and he says that a single securities commission is not good for us. So, I am telling him, and I am telling my fellow federalist colleagues in this House that they are acting to ensure that the important thing for Quebec is separation, or running away from this Canada that is stifling us.