Debates of Feb. 24th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Securities Commission and Equalization

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I might continue on from the excellent speech by my colleague from Markham—Unionville.

We have a job to do. As members of Parliament, there are times when the public interest must prevail and we must live up to our responsibilities, having regard to the situation and the circumstances we find ourselves in. One of the reasons why we agreed to vote for this budget is the economic situation. This is not rocket science. We do not need to look both ways to determine that first, the public does not want an election, second, they want us to do our jobs, and third, they want to know how we are going to be able to help them not just pay their bills, but put food in their refrigerators. We are having to face a reality that comes down to basic needs. I therefore think that we here have the responsibility for making these decisions.

We are voting for the budget because we are facing an unprecedented economic crisis. And because we are voting for this budget and we have taken the time to read it, we are in a position to criticize it. I welcome the Bloc Québécois motion. I understand what they are trying to accomplish in political terms. I have to say that it is a bad strategy, in my opinion. What I think, as a member from Quebec, as the Quebec lieutenant for our party, is that there is a time when decisions have to be made in the public interest. That is exactly the reason why we will be voting against the motion. That being said, we can sit down and talk about equalization and we can also talk about this much-vaunted national securities commission.

I have reservations about a national securities commission. Why? Because section 92 is clear and it seems that this is something that is under provincial jurisdiction. And so even before making a decision about whether such an institution is a good idea, the least we have to do is look into it by following an established procedure to determine whether the jurisdiction is there.

This is not the first time we have discussed the securities commission. We were talking about it during our time. There have been reports written about this for years. There were reports in 2003 and 2006. There have also been motions and debate about it. So this is not the first time we have talked about a national securities commission. I think that before going any further, we will have to know the arguments pro and con. The minimally decent thing for a government to do is to bring good bills forward. When a bill is to be introduced, we have to make sure that it will achieve consensus and is consistent with our Constitution. What should be done? It has been done with other bills in the past. I think it was done at the time with the clarity bill. There is a procedure to be followed. The Minister of Justice should refer the question to the Supreme Court and ask whether it is consistent with the Constitution. If the first argument to be made by people who are against this commission is to raise a question of jurisdiction, we could save time and find a solution. In fact, I think the government is aware of this, because another bill will be introduced in three years for the creation of a national securities commission.

The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Leader of the Official Opposition, has already stated a few weeks ago that our position is that, even before continuing this debate, the first thing to do is to get an opinion from the Supreme Court, to provide some clarity on the question of jurisdiction. This is not the first time that this subject has been discussed. Many experts will say that it is constitutional and others will say that it is not. Others, who have less backbone, will try to sit on the fence. One thing is clear; before proceeding further, an answer is needed.

I want things to be clear. This is not just about Quebec. The Bloc may have raised the matter, but that does not mean we should think this is just about Quebec.

The Bloc members can speak on behalf of the National Assembly if they want to. We have friends as well. We can speak to the Charest government. The fact is that as soon as the budget has been adopted, several provincial governments will be in the courts, asking the same question about the jurisdiction of the national securities commission.

Many business people say that it is a good thing. However, I agree with my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville. It has been tried in the United States, and in Great Britain. This was supposed to be the greatest invention since sliced bread. That did not prevent an unprecedented economic crisis in the United States. It has not prevented problems in Europe, especially in Great Britain. Any attempt to make us believe that we absolutely need this to resolve the economic crisis is an argument that does not hold water.

Once again, it is extremely important that we consider the quality of life of Canadians; that, first and foremost, we adopt the budget. Measures in the budget are necessary to help our regions. There are needs in terms of infrastructure. There are measures that will directly improve people’s quality of life. We know that this government will not last forever. People know that when we were in power—and it will happen again—we always had our hearts in the right place. We were able to help people, and to have better relations with the provinces.

Let us talk about equalization. The equalization formula has been changed four times in as many years; it changes every year. We signed agreements. I completely disagree with this government's claim that it is engaging in open federalism; it should be ashamed. There have never been as many quarrels between this government and the provinces as there are now. The government is incapable of keeping its promises to the Atlantic provinces or to Quebec. For example, it is not keeping its promise to Newfoundland and Labrador about transferring energy revenues. I find the government's attempts to talk about open federalism appalling: it cannot even respect its own agreements.

That being said, the equalization formulas have been amended four times in four years. We were part of the government and, as such, we worked hard and reached asymmetrical agreements, which we always respected. We will vote for the budget, but the public need not worry. One day soon, the Liberal Party of Canada will be in power, and we will keep our promises.

In the meantime, wherever I go in Quebec, I see that people want to come to some kind of agreement and work together to help those who are suffering. Some people are already being hit hard by the economic crisis, and others will be. So it is our responsibility to pass this budget once and for all.

However, the government is on probation. There are three dates: March, June and December. Come those dates, if the government is not doing its job, we will form a government and prove that we are the best alternative, that we are capable of helping people. We have done it before: in 1993, we inherited a $42 billion deficit. We were known as the “Canadian miracle”. We know how a government is supposed to work. We have led this country back into prosperity and we have helped the people. We are the alternative, but now is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to pass the budget.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in part with the member for Bourassa. The present economic situation is quite difficult. As he says, there is no need to be a genius to understand that. However, the result of the October 14 election is very clear. The government cannot invoke the economic situation to simply do what it pleases. Some things must be taken into account. We must make sure that good decisions will be made to help all citizens.

I would like to come back to a rather important question. If the securities commission works fine, as it does in Quebec especially, why would you want to change anything? While the official opposition voted for this budget, I would like to point out that, if the government is short of ideas or vision when it comes to solutions, the Bloc Québécois made numerous propositions regarding the budget which can be drawn from. I wonder why anyone would want to change things which presently work very well in Quebec.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to debate in the House, and I congratulate him on his election.

That is exactly why we need to refer this to the Supreme Court. Our role is to ensure that the laws we make do not become problematic later on. Given that this budget states, with regard to a securities commission, that there will be additional legislation in three years, it is obvious. It is important to look at the bigger picture, and I am sure my colleague would agree that the public does not want an election tomorrow morning.

Everyone is saying that we need to have lots of latitude to give the people the financial help they need, as quickly as possible. Referring this to the Supreme Court is one answer, a responsible alternative. I do not believe it when they say it is voluntary. I do not believe it when they try to tell me that centralization will work. We could have better standardization and better regulations, but we eventually need to have a debate about regulations and operations.

And then we will see. For now, in our opinion, this motion is adding fuel to the fire for no reason. We should pass the budget and then decide. As for a national securities commission, since there are jurisdictional issues, we should take it to the Supreme Court.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am a bit confused, although I do not know why I would be surprised at that given the role the Liberal Party has played so often in the history of our country in taking confusing positions. So I can be very clear today, are Liberals voting for or against the motion by the Bloc and—

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

They don't know.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

They do not know. That is the problem. They do not know what they are doing. In a few hours, they could change their minds again.

However, I would like to know if the Liberals will be voting for or against the motion.

Specifically on the issue of the national regulator, I know he wants it to be referred to the Supreme Court so somebody else makes the decision rather than they having to do so, but is that the only reason he would vote for this, or is he in favour of a national regulator if we have jurisdiction at the federal level, which I do not believe we do?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have become accustomed to higher standards from the hon. member in the files he handles. He asks this kind of question with certain innuendoes. Perhaps he was too busy working on his laptop and did not take the time to listen to what I said.

We have said we will vote against the motion, because we are responsible. That said, the hon. member for Winnipeg North said that we should vote in favour of a national securities commission. Yet the hon. member for Outremont said he was against this idea. As for confusion, the NDP could certainly give the Liberal Party a run for its money.

It is our responsibility to make decisions that will prevent legal problems from arising later on. I have a problem with the idea of a national securities commission, and I said so during the debates during the last election campaign. We could save some time here if the government, through the Minister of Justice, could refer to the Supreme Court—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question he asked earlier of the brilliant and talented member for Bourassa. I must admit, during the election campaign, I mainly heard him say he was against this kind of system that the federal government wants to impose on the provinces that do not want it. I heard him tell his constituents at the end of January in this House that he would vote against this idea. I was therefore very intrigued by the response to this clear question. He just said once again that, although he has a serious problem with this commission, like a good Liberal, he will vote in favour of the bill. Imagine that. We knew they were sell-outs, but who knew they could be bought for nothing?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Outremont accused me of being a sell-out. That is unparliamentary language. He is not one to be lecturing. As a result of a court ruling in a libel suit, he has already had to pay damages to one member. I would ask this member to act honourably , to conduct himself as an MP who must do his work and to not call his colleagues various names. I ask him to withdraw his remarks.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was, “We knew they were sell-outs, but who knew they could be bought for nothing?” because they get nothing in return for what they are demanding. There is nothing unparliamentary about that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I believe that the hon. member for Outremont was not speaking about an individual member of the House. Therefore, I do not believe it is unparliamentary. However, I urge him to be discerning and to not use words that could be detrimental to relations among members.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have never hesitated to say the same things outside the House that I say here, unlike others who use their parliamentary immunity, as the member for Bourassa just did by threatening me on the floor of the House.

The only reason why the Liberals are threatening us is because they feel threatened by us. They know that the New Democratic Party has principles and they do not.

Let us examine the facts and put this into context. We are examining a budget bill. On November 27, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party were prepared to bring down the government over an economic statement by the Conservative government because it contained three items deemed odious by the three political parties.

First of all, it took away women’s right to equal pay for work of equal value, a fundamental sacred principle entrenched in our legislation and our charters. Next, it took away the social right to bargain collectively and to act on that collective bargaining, a social and union right recognized and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Third, it took away the bread and butter of the Liberal Party of Canada. Let us remember that the system for publicly financing political parties was put in place in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Some members of this House testified before the Gomery commission. That was the worst political scandal in Canadian history, with prosecutions and people put in prison. That was the work of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Thus, the three items in question were clean financing for political parties, women’s right to equal pay for work of equal value, and union rights. There was unanimity on this in the three opposition parties, which were prepared to overturn the government.

And so we were surprised, at the end of January, to see that two of these three items were still in the budget. The Conservatives are holding to their intention to take away women’s right to equal pay for work of equal value, and to take away union and social rights, but the bread and butter of the Liberals have been restored. So now they are supporting it. Such are the principles of the Liberal Party of Canada—there are no principles in the Liberal Party of Canada. That is their chronic problem.

Today we are discussing two matters proposed in an opposition motion: to put an end to the federal government’s urge to attack the provinces by introducing a single system for controlling securities, which runs counter to the original agreement. In 1867, it was understood that the provincial governments would have full jurisdiction over civil law, property and civil rights in the province. The provinces have their prerogatives, which must be respected.

For its part, the federal government deals with criminal law. This has always been recognized. The federal government is also responsible for bills of exchange and banks. No argument there: this has always been recognized. The federal government is responsible for competition law. This is not contested. The federal government also has an office responsible for the supervision of financial institutions.

In all the spheres of activity I have just mentioned, the federal government regularly makes mistakes when it comes to rigorous application of the legislation under its jurisdiction, and it is inventing a problem in the field of securities. It says that since it has done nothing with the responsibilities it already had, it cannot be the source of the problem. So it invents another problem by introducing this vision of a single system for controlling securities, even though the provinces, with a passport system, were in the process of resolving a longstanding problem among themselves.

Rather than just letting the provinces finish the job properly, the government is trying to take advantage of the very real economic crisis to say that this must provide a solution to the economic problems. Hogwash. That is not it at all. The Conservatives’ supposed securities solution does not solve any identifiable problem. It is an old impulse on the part of senior federal public servants to try to sink their claws into another area of provincial jurisdiction. That is what this is all about.

The second part of the motion proposed today has to do with the fact that the provinces can no longer count on a principled equalization system—the principles in the O'Brien report which ensured that the provinces had some certainty about the funds that would be theirs. It was a source of pride for the Conservatives and they talked publicly at every opportunity about the good things they were doing. But that is all over with now.

The Conservatives do not have any principles left when it comes to equalization. The Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador stood up on their own two feet to vote against government theft from their equalization payments. The Liberal members from Quebec might have been expected to stand up too, like their colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador, to protest against the theft of a billion dollars from the transfers to their province. But no, we just saw their answer: they are going to vote in favour of the single securities regulator and they are going to vote in favour of the theft of a billion dollars from the transfer payments to Quebec. That is what the Liberals’ so-called Quebec members are going to vote for: a federal invasion of an area of provincial jurisdiction and the withdrawal of a billion dollars.

That leaves another whole question. The member for Bourassa said publicly that if Premier Charest had asked him, he would have voted against the budget. One of two things must be true: either he was asked but did not listen or he was never asked. It might be worthwhile to find out the answer to that question.

For my part, I saw Monique Jérôme-Forget stand up and say publicly she never agreed to this. The finance minister tried to say publicly that he had informed her about some things during a brief encounter at an airport. So who is telling the truth in all this? All I know is that the prediction that the Parti Québécois made during the general election campaign in Quebec has turned out to be true. It is the amount, according to Ms. Marois, that was taken away, and we are very concerned about that. We are as concerned about that in Quebec as they are in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nevertheless, all the provinces are concerned about the uncertainty this has created. We are back in a situation that involves pure discretion, and it is difficult not to see a certain symmetry in some actions; amounts that have been given in one place and taken away in another. If you play along with the Conservatives—if you agree to accommodate them—you will be treated properly. It has been interesting to see the beating the federal Conservative government has suffered, both in Newfoundland and in Quebec. It is not too difficult to put two and two together and to conclude that it was, to some extent, a form of payback for what had happened.

For my part, as a member from Quebec; as someone who has always respected the federal compact—and I dare say that one of the most difficult political jobs in Canada is to be a federalist in Quebec—I rise today and tell you that we will vote in favour of the Bloc motion. I will be voting for the Bloc motion on both points and for two reasons.

In the first place, it is wrong to take away from the provinces the rights that they have enjoyed since 1867. That is the root of the constitutional problems that we have had, and which were largely caused by the Liberal Party for more than 40 years. That is the basic problem in Canada. For more than 40 years, the Liberal Party of Canada has been trying at every opportunity to nibble away at the power of the provinces, particularly Quebec. It has often been supported by other provinces, but it is always trying to take away something. And every time Quebec reacts properly, the Liberals go around the rest of Canada saying it is a good thing; we are lucky to have the Liberal Party that stands up to the “separatists.” But they are the chief cause, the instigators of the problem. That is exactly what it is.

We listened to the member for Bourassa holding forth for 20 minutes; telling us that there are big problems, and finally responding to a simple question, because it was not clear, saying that he will vote in favour. That is mastering the art of saying one thing and its very opposite in the same sentence. This is the art that the Liberal Party of Canada has mastered for a generation. They say they are against something; but they vote for it. We are seeing that now in the parliamentary committee examining the budget. We see, time after time, that the Liberals refuse to stand up for what they call, and what they have previously called, matters of principle. I listed them earlier: the rights of women and the rights of unions; but let us also remember the environment.

In the past, a group could talk about the environment even though it never really did anything about it. That is another characteristic of the Liberal Party of Canada that has never changed. It talks about doing things but, once in office, it does absolutely nothing. At least, with regard to the environment, it did propose a few things recently. But this time, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is being changed and the Liberals will vote against that. There is something interesting here. Last night, in committee, we heard from many groups, canoe-kayak groups, people responsible for the protection of rivers, environmental groups, social groups, all very concerned by these changes. Interestingly, many of them told me openly that they had supported the Liberal Party of Canada in the past. They told me very clearly that they understand what the situation is with the new leader.

It is the old gang. It is the old gang from the sponsorship scandal that tells the new leader, a right-wing Liberal, what to do. And the old sponsorship gang is just waiting its turn to come to the trough.

The member for Bourassa is trying to prepare us for that when he says that the Liberals want to help. They want to help themselves. That is what the Liberal Party is all about. The Liberals have no convictions. They believe in nothing. The only thing they care about is themselves. The Standing Committee on Finance and the House are looking at a budget bill that again will take away the right of women to equal pay for work of equal value, that again will take away union rights, that again will hurt the poorest by not giving anything more to the unemployed, for example. But the Liberals got what they wanted: their financing. So forget about women, the environment, social and union rights, the unemployed and the poor. The Liberals got what the Liberals wanted: something for the Liberals.

That is not the NDP's way of doing things. We in the NDP have principles. We believe in what we say. There are great differences in this House, but hon. members will never hear me speak against a proposal and then vote in favour of it. They will never see me take the floor to support a proposal and then vote against it. That is the difference between the member for Bourassa and myself. That is the difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party, which is a party of ideas, a party that has been guided by principles for the past 70 years. The NDP is a party of men and women who have consistently held the same social vision for Canada, which is to ensure that the most vulnerable people get the state's proper attention, that we remove the obstacles to equality in our society, whether it is between men and women, between races or religions, and that even includes social inequalities. For example, we do not think it is normal that a person who cannot afford to go to university be deprived of the opportunity to do so.

This is the sort of issues that have always been a core value for the New Democratic Party. We are concerned about our democracy. This is a Conservative minority government. It is the third consecutive minority government. Indeed, we had a Liberal government under Mr. Martin, followed by two Conservative governments with the current Prime Minister. This makes three minority governments in a row. However, the last two Conservative governments have been able to behave as if they held a majority, because of the cowardly complicity and behaviour of the Liberal Party of Canada, which is supposed to be the official opposition. Over the past three years, they have become the official abstention party. The Liberals believe that if they do nothing, sooner or later they will be in office again. That is their main concern. They tell themselves that sooner or later it will be their turn.

So, a lack of principles, a lack of credibility and a lack of consistency. That is the problem with the Liberal Party and that is why we in the NDP are the only real, credible, fierce and reliable opposition fighting against the Conservative government and its attacks on rights, namely the rights of women, of unions and of the most vulnerable people in our society. Thank goodness the New Democratic Party is here to stand up for Canadians.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much attention to the remarks of my colleague from Outremont. He addressed an issue of some substance, but I am surprised by his apparent opposition to a national securities regulator.

I was hopeful this issue might actually be one on which the NDP and the Conservatives might agree. I notice that we have had very strong support on this issue from national unions such as the Canadian Labour Congress and the National Union of Public and General Employees; from the somewhat left-leaning Toronto Star; from an NDP caucus leader, the member for Winnipeg North, who said she thought it was a worthwhile goal; and from the leader of the NDP himself, who told the Toronto Board of Trade that he would like to see us moving toward a national regulator.

My question for the hon. member for Outremont is this: whose position is the position of the NDP? Is it the member for Outremont, the leader, or the member for Winnipeg North? Who speaks for the NDP on this issue, and what is the NDP's position on a national securities regulator? Will the NDP support a national securities regulator?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was moving toward a passport system. Under this system the provinces would work together, because it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and we were getting the job done.

This attempt to centralize and to dictate from Ottawa on securities is a mistake. Historically, the federal government has had responsibility for criminal law, for banking and negotiable instruments, and for competition legislation. We have something called the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The member should have been in committee with us last year when we were asking this officer what had been done with regard to asset-backed commercial paper; the answer was “nothing”, so the problem is that in areas of its own jurisdiction, the federal government has traditionally done nothing.

In the meantime, Vincent Lacroix is behind bars for 10 years in Quebec for fraud because of the rigorous and constant application of securities statutes in the province. It takes away nothing from the federal government in its ability to work. It does not stop the provinces from coming together. The federal government can play a role of facilitator in that. All sorts of things can be done, but that is not what this is about.

The opting-in provisions in what is being proposed by the current Minister of Finance will be worse in terms of a result than what exists now. People simply will not know who the regulator is. Traditionally, if you look, all the prosecutions under the sponsorship scandal were carried out by the Quebec provincial government. There were none by the federal government. Vincent Lacroix is the object of hundreds of criminal prosecutions, while not the first hour of the first day of the first trial on the first charge by the federal government has even been held. That is the reality of the federal government's lousy track record--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the very important speech by my hon. colleague from Outremont. He told us about the weakness of the Liberals’ principles as he sees them and as I also see them. The Liberals are in fact so weak at the moment that they are part of the Conservative-Liberal coalition where they are no more than a pale copy of the Conservative Party.

Our friend and colleague from Bourassa has just told us about the poor who will be suffering the effects of the crisis, and yet in the same breath he agreed to $1 billion for Quebec being slashed, something that will create more poor people and make their lives even more miserable. He also told us, on the other hand, about the weakness of the Conservative Party’s budget. That budget would not even exist if there had been no threat from a serious coalition. That threat was based solely on the real, specific and costed plan presented by the Bloc Québécois, the only real plan that was put forward before we started talking about a budget in Parliament.

My colleague is talking to us about the underlying principles of the NDP that everyone in Canada should be glad to know exist. But we too have principles, and we have something the NDP does not have: we have a plan. Where is the NDP’s plan?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that. I will tell my friend and colleague that the price of an NDP membership card is $10. I will be putting his membership card in the mail right away. We do not accept defectors, but if he wants to take out a membership card, and run under the NDP banner and have an opportunity to get elected in a riding, I will sign on to help him. That would mean that, in constitutional terms, he now shares the vision of the New Democratic Party.

In the last election campaign, the NDP published a very wide-ranging plan on the economy in general. More specifically, we are very proud to have had the best plan when it comes to clean and renewable energy. We also got extraordinary coverage on the front page of Le Devoir in an article by Louis-Gilles Francoeur. We have a plan. If he wants to join us, we will be happy to have him.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

I intend to raise once again in this House two points that are vital for Quebec—the unilateral amendment of the equalization formula and the Conservative government's intention to proceed with its plan for a national securities commission.

First off, when the budget was tabled, we learned, as did our colleagues in the National Assembly, that the federal government had unilaterally amended the equalization formula to the detriment of Quebec—and unilaterally is what hit hardest, because the federal government was acting on its own after agreement had been reached on an equalization formula. This decision, taken without consultation, will be devastating to Quebec's financial health. Amending the equalization formula will cost Quebec $991 million as of next year.

Next, the budget confirms the federal government's intention to carry out its plan to establish a national securities commission, which had been rejected unanimously by everyone in Quebec involved in politics and the economy. The creation of this commission will threaten the survival of Montreal's trading activities to the benefit of Toronto's.

These measures are not in the interest of Quebec. They mean a loss of revenue for the Government of Quebec and a loss of trading activities in Montreal. All Quebec MPs must lobby to prevent the Conservative government from weakening Quebec yet again.

Unilateral amendment of the equalization formula, apart from intruding on Quebec's jurisdiction, will deprive us Quebeckers of the most vital of services. The cost of health care and education is skyrocketing. A total rewrite of Quebec's budget affects us dramatically. Equalization enables the Government of Quebec to provide a whole range of front-line services, including income security and a number of other social programs.

The fiscal imbalance means that the money is in Ottawa, and the need in Quebec. When finances tighten in Ottawa, Quebec and the provinces feel the effect because the federal government is unilaterally setting the rules for equalization to suit its own interests and not those of Quebec and the provinces.

So, while Ottawa cares for no patients and does not educate Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec has to deal with the spending, which is vital to Quebec and its economy. And so the major changes to equalization will cost Quebec $1 billion as of next year. The amendments contained in the budget implementation bill were decided by the finance minister without warning, consultation or sharing of relevant information with the finance ministers of Quebec and the provinces. The Government of Quebec has made clear its opposition to the proposed changes.

In this regard, I would like to quote Marcelin Joanis, a professor at the University of Sherbrooke's department of economics. He wrote the following in this month's edition of the Options politiques journal:

In a federation like Canada, where the provinces have exclusive constitutional responsibility over such strategic economic levers as health and education, it is no longer acceptable to have the provinces' financial situation at the mercy of the federal government's whims whenever a crisis surfaces.

In the current economic context, the last thing Quebec needs is a federal government that wants to once again offload its problems onto the provinces. The fact that the federal government can decide to amend the equalization formula without consulting the provinces is evidence that the real issue, namely the fiscal imbalance, is not settled. We must really talk about income stability. One wonders how the Quebec government can have budgets that make sense when—after negotiations had taken place to determine the equalization formula—it is faced with a situation that has changed so much that it can no longer fulfill its responsibilities.

Let us not forget that equalization payments are not a gift. It is a process which, to some degree, corrects a reality, namely that Ottawa collects way too much taxes for the services provided, while Quebec does not have the financial leeway of a sovereign state but must still provide essential services such as health and education.

Until Quebec becomes a sovereign state and is the only one collecting taxes on its territory, the Bloc Québécois proposes that transfers to the provinces be replaced by the equivalent tax room. That is the only way to protect Quebeckers from the whims of Ottawa.

As regards the establishment of a national securities commission, that idea was unanimously rejected in Quebec. The federal government is once again showing its urge to interfere in a Quebec jurisdiction, namely securities regulation. As with equalization, Ottawa is using the economic crisis to justify these unilateral decisions that go against the best interests of Quebec. As was the case with amending the equalization formula, the Quebec National Assembly was unanimously opposed to the establishment of a national securities commission based in Toronto. To centralize in Toronto all financial activities taking place in Canada is unacceptable to Bloc Québécois members.

It is unacceptable that a formula which works very well according to the International Monetary Fund should be modified. Our passport system is effective and efficient. It allows us to benefit from regulatory competition. Why change something that is working so well?

This House recognized the Quebec nation. It is incoherent for the federal government to recognize on one hand that Quebecers form a nation and, one the other hand, to take away from Montreal, their economic and financial capital, and to weaken it for the benefit of Toronto. Any self-respecting nation would vigorously defend its financial and political capitals. This double talk from the Conservative government is absurd: we recognize you as a nation, but we will take away one by one your powers and you economic development levers.

In conclusion, this opposition day is obviously one of the very few opportunities we have to express the unanimous position of the National Assembly of Quebec, as well as Quebecers it represents, on equalization and on the creation of a national securities commission. The Conservative members of Parliament from Quebec follow blindly the position established by their party, even if it goes against the best interests of Quebec, as is the case with equalization and with the creation of a national securities commission. At the same time, the Liberal members of Parliament remain seated and accept the government position, except of course the ones who are lucky enough to be members from Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Bloc Québécois members are the only ones who dare speak up for Quebec in this House. To unilaterally amend the equalization formula and to create a single securities commission goes against the interests of Quebec as a nation. This is the reason why we strongly oppose these two measures. I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of this motion from the Bloc Québécois.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague on the issues of equalization, but the other part of this motion concerns the need for a securities regulator. The examples that I have heard from the Bloc today have not really explained any real commitment at the provincial levels to ensure that investors are protected against stock fraud, not that I believe for a second that the Conservatives have a very clear plan. But the issue has to be addressed.

We have to look no further than the issue of Bre-X, which I brought up earlier. This stock fraud was set up on one of the smaller stock exchanges in Calgary. It moved onto the TSX. Six billion dollars in investments were defrauded through Bre-X and at the end of the day, the RCMP shrugged and said it could not launch an investigation. de Guzman jumped, was pushed or took a parachute to freedom. Walsh took off to the Bahamas and then later died. Felderhof, who was the chief geologist, was finally charged with insider trading. He was the guy who was seeing the gold samples and yet the Ontario securities regulator could not bring any charges and convict him. At no provincial level were the investors protected. How will the investors be protected in a time of economic uncertainty if we just maintain this patchwork of services?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

First of all, we can take specific cases. The Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec is doing its work well, and the Canadian system is functioning well. On this subject we must refer to specialists, such as the International Monetary Fund, which has examined our system and found it to be mature, evolved and well managed, declaring that Canada has established a very effective and virtually unified regulatory and control system, and that its system for regulating the securities markets shows that principles have been largely implemented.

What is more, in 2006, the OECD ranked Canada second in the world for the quality of its securities regulations, as did the 2006 study by the National Bank. So the system is working well. Why change a system that is working properly to enrich the Toronto Stock Exchange?

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who is as clear as ever. I have one brief question to ask her. Is it not a little surprising that it has been decided to include in Bill C-10 implementing the budget a clause establishing a securities commission?

Is this not the vengeance or influence of the Ontario lobby, which will have the support of the Conservative members from Quebec? In the end, there was no connection to the economic crisis, as was recognized by the OECD and by the person responsible on the committee that introduced the bank papers solution. Are we not faced here with a situation where the federal government, both Conservatives and Liberals, has decided to take advantage of a budget implementation act to propose a centralizing motion? Is this not a very concrete example that here only the Bloc Québécois is defending the real interests of Quebec?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

There is one thing that strikes me. I was elected in 2004, and not a week goes by in this House when some attempt is not made to intrude upon Quebec’s fields of jurisdiction. We must constantly be defending our existence. I want to say that life is very difficult when you are a woman, a francophone and a sovereignist.

My colleague is completely right when he says that they want to use the budget to saddle us with a national securities commission, possibly with some deals underlying this whole new system they want to bring in. One wonders how this can be foisted off on us with no justification. I wonder if the old tactic of “divide and conquer” might not be in play here in this House.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières on her speech, which allowed all of those listening to us to understand why, on this opposition day, the Bloc Québécois has chosen to speak about the motion before us, which is as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately renounce two measures contained in the recent budget:

(a) establishing a national securities commission, because establishing such a commission would constitute an intolerable intrusion into Quebec’s jurisdiction, and the current passport system functions very well; and

(b) unilaterally amending the equalization formula, since the Prime Minister, in a letter to the Premier of Quebec dated March 19, 2007, promised that transfers to the provinces would be predictable and long term, and should also comply with the government of Quebec’s request to give the revenues generated by Hydro-Québec’s transmission and distribution activities the same treatment, regardless of the equalization calculation, as that given Hydro One’s revenues.

As the member for Trois-Rivières mentioned, it is difficult for the Bloc Québécois to understand and admit that there are members from other political parties, representing Quebec, who do not support this motion.

As a reminder—it has been stated, but it is important enough to repeat—in January 2009, not long ago, a few weeks at most, the National Assembly passed a unanimous motion expressing Quebec's demands. It was unanimous, supported by both the federalist parties, the Quebec Liberal Party and Action démocratique du Québec, and the sovereignist party, the Parti Québécois.

I would remind the House that in the National Assembly's unanimous motion, there were two paragraphs that are reflected in the motion we have moved. I will read them in the order they appear in the motion that was passed by the National Assembly in January 2009:

That it [the National Assembly] demand that the Federal Government maintain the equalization programme that is currently in place...and that it reiterate its firm opposition to the Canada-wide securities commission project.

It is a bit difficult to understand how Quebeckers, parliamentarians, who, in theory, represent Quebec here can vote against the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois, which is universally supported in Quebec. I see that as additional proof that only the members of Bloc Québécois, such as the member for Trois-Rivières, are truly in this House to defend unconditionally the interest and values of Quebec. However, those members will have to make their explanations to voters and to the members of the National Assembly.

Regarding the first part of our motion dealing with the national securities commission, in constitutional terms, this issue is very clear. We know the Canadian constitution goes back to 1867 and that in certain fields there have been so many changes that there could be grounds for a debate among constitutionalists. The Supreme Court could also be called on to rule on subjects such as telecommunications, for example. It is clear that in 1867 that question never arose. In our view, it is very clear that this is an extension of Quebec’s jurisdiction in the field of culture. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the Supreme Court has spoken in a way that leans toward the Canadian federal position.

However, it is expressly stated in the Canadian constitution that securities fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec. Moreover, it is hard to understand how a Conservative government that sometimes, although less and less, boasts of a federalism of openness, could move straight ahead with a proposal that goes against not only the Canadian constitution—once again, it is clearly stated in the provisions of the Constitution of 1867—but also against public opinion in Quebec.

I have mentioned the motion adopted by the National Assembly, but the great majority of the Quebec business community is also against this proposal for a national securities commission. I have heard what the directors of the Mouvement Desjardins, for example, think about it. Obviously, the directors of the Autorité des marchés financiers, which includes our Quebec securities commission, have also explained the reasons for maintaining the current system.

The passport system, for example, has proved its worth. External evaluations by the OECD and the International Monetary Fund have confirmed the good reputation of all the systems in Quebec and Canada. I recall that in 2006 a study by the World Bank and Lex Mundi ranked Canada in third place in terms of protecting investors, while the United States and the United Kingdom ranked seventh and ninth, respectively. In its 2006 report, the OECD also ranked Canada second in security regulation, ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

So enough of telling us that the current system is inefficient. The passport system, which perhaps ought to be further developed, responds fully to the needs of investors and companies that need to deal with those structures.

This is nothing but an excuse. Once again, the Conservatives are using this excuse, as they have on other issues, in the current economic crisis to give the impression that a national securities commission could have prevented things. They are insulting people's intelligence. People are not stupid, particularly people in Quebec.

In July 2007, not many people could have imagined that the financial crisis would grow to these proportions. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that a Canada-wide commission would have done any better. On the contrary, we can see that in centralized systems, the effectiveness and enforcement of the regulations have by no means been proven.

Another factor, and one of the hobbyhorses often raised by the Minister of Finances, relates to the costs associated with the securities commission system we have in Quebec and in the provinces with that system. That system is entirely consistent with the Canadian Constitution. So then we are told that the costs are the problem. In 2002, the direct costs of regulation, per million of capitalization, were $145 in Canada, compared to $141 in the United States. So we see that in terms of value for money, the present system serves us better than a centralized system.

It is very clear in this regard. The Minister of Finance is acting solely in the interests of the Bay Street financial community. He wants to make sure that the entire financial world is concentrated in Toronto and controlled by Toronto. That would be extremely damaging for the Quebec economy. I will give you an example.

Imagine that this Canada-wide securities commission had been in existence at the time of the merger between the Montreal Stock Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange. The Toronto financial community would have been judge and jury in its own trial, in that case. Would we have been able to get what we got—conditions imposed to ensure that the Montreal Stock Exchange continued to develop its activities alongside Toronto’s? No, the fact that we have the Autorité des marchés financiers québécois, a Quebec securities commission, meant that we were able to study the transaction and attach certain conditions that would never have been attached, and make no mistake about that, if we had had a Canada-wide securities commission. In our opinion, there is every reason to preserve the situation as it now stands.

I will conclude with the equalization question, which has been mentioned several times. The March 19 letter from the Prime Minister of Canada is very clear on that subject. I would like to respond to the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Agriculture. He says that if Quebec were sovereign, we would lose $8 billion in equalization. In fact, we would lose that $8 billion, but we would gain $50 billion in income tax, which would flow back into the public purse in Quebec. We would no longer need equalization and transfer payments from the federal government. We would therefore come out a long way ahead. For that reason, more and more Quebeckers think that sovereignty is the solution of the future for Quebec.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with certain elements in my colleague's speech. However, I do not believe this is an economic stimulus package. It seems to be an ideological cattle prod aimed at attacking women's equity rights, the environment and even student loans.

My question for my hon. colleague concerns the issue of the regulator. I do not believe the people sitting across the aisle have any real commitment to corporate accountability. They have never shown any in the past.

However, there is the issue of widespread corporate fraud. My hon. colleague can make it an issue of Montreal versus Toronto, but the one thing that all these security regulators have in common is the free passes they allow for dodgy companies to pick and choose where they want to go.

One of the big problems we see in Montreal is that it is the home of the derivative market, which is highly unregulated. It has been called the weapon of economic mass destruction. We do not even know how much effect it has because it is so unregulated. There is a need to address this in order to give consumers and investors confidence.

I have not heard from Bloc members how they would ensure that confidence is guaranteed. Just because it is sits in Montreal does not give an investor confidence.