Debates of June 15th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Securities Regulation

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to some of the arguments and speeches from the Bloc members and they seem to be having a great deal of difficulty differentiating between our financial services, our banking institution, and the securities regulatory system that we are debating today.

I realize this is getting repetitive. I believe we have dealt with the private member's piece on a Canadian securities regulator twice before. However, anyone listening to this debate might be confused. They might think our banking system is not sound, which is an absolutely false statement.

However, can we do better in our fragmented securities system? Absolutely, we can. This approach will give a competitive advantage by reducing unnecessary compliance costs for businesses. That is what we need in the country. When we did our prebudget consultations across the country, we heard a huge concern for access to credit, access to financing. We want to encourage other countries to have their companies come and set up businesses here, but when they come, they have to deal with 13 different regulators.

Could the hon. member answer this one short question? What will she say to her constituents when they cannot jump all the hurdles of 13 separate securities regulators?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the somewhat macho insult just delivered by my colleague, who said we are a bit confused in our understanding of the financial system. That may be because two women are the ones who have been speaking. I will not take the debate to that level. However, I can say that if we are confused, the entire National Assembly of Quebec must also be confused and not understand the issue we are debating here. I am sorry, that is very insulting. Someone should have a word with our male colleagues in the National Assembly who are opposed to the idea of a single securities commission in Canada. I think that many more people—not just me—must be confused this afternoon.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, Science and Technology; the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, The Economy.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to take part in the debate on the motion by the Bloc about securities regulations, as put forward by my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain. This motion asks for the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces to be recognized and asks the federal government to reject, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator.

The Liberal Party understands that our national prosperity is based on cooperation and fairness. It is based on a mutual respect between provinces and the federal government, and on recognizing that provinces are partners of our federation. The project of a national securities regulator by the Harper government must be consistent with the Constitution. Consequently, the government must refer the matter to the Supreme Court before implementing its plan...

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member knows she is not supposed to use the proper names of members.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Excuse me.

The Canadian Constitution does not say anything specific about such issues as the regulation of securities. It would be imprudent, therefore, to make major changes to the system only to have them challenged before the courts and invalidated.

Voting for this motion means assuming exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Voting against it means assuming federal jurisdiction. The Liberal Party will not assume anything until the Supreme Court has spoken.

Securities legislation in Canada and throughout the world has two main objectives: to protect investors and to ensure that financial markets are efficient, fair and transparent. Regulatory differences between jurisdictions in relation to the disclosure and exchange of information between corporations and investors can distort the markets and increase investor risk—two very undesirable consequences from the standpoint of economic stability and competitiveness.

In general, the agencies that regulate securities oversee four important areas: capital leveraging through the sale of securities, such as private offerings and primary distributions; corporate transparency and the continual disclosure of relevant information to investors; enforcement of the securities regulations and prevention of deceptive or fraudulent behaviour; the qualifications of securities traders; and their good reputation and accreditation.

Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec are currently opposed to a single securities regulator. Ontario and British Columbia, on the other hand, are in favour. In October 2007, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asking the government to drop its plans for a national securities regulation commission. One of the arguments made by the provinces is that securities are a provincial responsibility under section 92(13) of the Constitution on property and civil rights. The federal government should not get involved.

Under the current regulations, securities in Canada are subject to directives from more than 13 provincial and territorial authorities. This sows confusion and hampers investment in Canadian businesses.

Companies trying to attract capital under the current system find it very expensive to comply with all the provincial regulations. Small businesses are particularly hurt because the fixed costs of compliance are proportionately higher for them. Time is also an important factor in leveraging capital, and the need to comply with a number of provincial regulatory systems delays negotiations. Investors from less populous provinces may be denied particular investments because some companies trade only in the largest provinces. The differences and disparities in the current regulations make implementation difficult. More resources would have to be devoted to it.

In answer to the criticism, all the provinces and territories with the exception of Ontario formed the Canadian Securities Administrators, a forum that allows the various securities regulators to coordinate and harmonize the regulation system in Canada. The Canadian Securities Administrators have developed a number of initiatives, including a passport system allowing for a single wicket and the ability to participate in all the regional capital markets.

On March 17, 2008, the securities passport system introduced the next stage, as a result of which any prospectus approved in one province would be recognized in all the other provinces, except Ontario. Canadian Securities Administrators also introduced an electronic data system for analysis and research to make information available, and a simplified national registration system for securities traders. According to an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted in 2004, 75% of financial professionals who responded were in favour of a national regulatory agency. In 2006, the Crawford panel commissioned by the Government of Ontario to examine securities regulation recommended the adoption of a common securities regulator.

The government included the creation of a national regulatory agency in the Speech from the Throne of November 19, 2008. At the time, the Minister of Finance proposed an exemption for any provinces that were opposed to the plan, including Quebec.

Last January, the panel led by Mr. Hockin published a 100-page report that called for creation of a decentralized single securities regulator that would allow Canada to protect investors better and be better integrated with international markets.

However, despite some recognition of provincial jurisdiction in the promise to maintain a presence throughout the country, the ministers of finance of Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec immediately opposed the plan. They threatened to sue the federal government if they lost their regulatory authority in this field. British Columbia gave official approval to the proposal.

Our position is clear. Before proceeding with a single Canadian securities commission, we should refer this question to the Supreme Court to determine whether that is constitutionally possible. However, we cannot support this motion today without reservation. It is not certain that such an institution would not better serve the economic interests of investors. That will have to be determined if the Supreme Court decides that the Constitution does permit such a regulatory agency to be established.

I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague that the Minister of Finance is not going about it in the right way to modernize security regulation and make it more efficient so that our markets are more attractive to investors and issuing corporations. But on what cultural grounds should the regulations for buying and selling shares and bonds be completely different in Quebec? There is no plot by the rest of Canada to deprive Quebec of these decision-making market centres. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that a new securities commission would properly have offices in Montreal to be on the ground, monitoring the actions of the various brokers under its control.

I am not here to support the government’s decision, but simply to say that the government has failed to accept its responsibility to refer this question to the Supreme Court.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, who spoke before, told us that this was not about protecting the public at all but more about compliance costs to companies. That is what the bottom line is with the government.

We have no shortage of companies operating in this country and they have been operating for 100 years. I know one could make the argument that in terms of filing a prospectus, it is probably administratively easier and quicker to get the prospectus approved by one jurisdiction rather than thirteen, which is a hard argument to go against, but the fact is that business will not leave the country. People will not stop filing prospectuses just because they need to go to a couple more jurisdictions. As a matter of fact there is a lot of similarities. It is not as if we need to completely rewrite the whole thing 13 time.

If businesses want to operate, they will continue to operate in the way they have been for the last 100 years. This is just a red herring on the part of the government trying to bamboozle us and scare us into saying that it will create all sorts of new jobs if we just have one regulator. We were into this before where if the regulator does not do a very aggressive job we will be no better off than we are right now.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as I have already said, compliance with more regulators is easier for big business. That is not the problem. It may be a disadvantage for smaller business, but the fact is that the government should first off have established its responsibility and looked into who had jurisdiction over securities, quite simply.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous questioner from the NDP, it is all about protecting Canadians' investments. That is a critical part that government can play. If we leave investments unprotected, shame on us.

There is an opportunity here to protect Canadians but there is also an opportunity to encourage investment in this country. We have heard loud and clear that there are opportunities for investment in many industries so they can expand. Just like we want to we Canadian companies invest outside of Canada, we need to have an environment that protects foreign investments in this country. That is critical.

I am very troubled by some of the positions. I will quote the finance minister from a previous meeting we had with the NDP. “We see that the NDP has this issue well surrounded” would be the way the finance minister referred to it, completely surrounded. In fact, its leader is in support of a Canadian securities regulator, the former NDP finance critic is on record supporting it and now the member for Outremont, the present finance critic for the NDP, is completely opposed to it, not only in the NDP but in the Liberal Party.

The member for Pickering—Scarborough East stood moments ago and said that he would be supporting it. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood is on record as supporting it. The member for Markham—Unionville is on record as supporting it but then he surrounded the issue completely again and is now going abstain, I guess.

What is more interesting is a quote by the former prime minister, Paul Martin, who the member has replaced. Paul Martin said, “The status quo will not work and it must change. Otherwise issuers and investors will take their money elsewhere.”

Could I ask the hon. member how she will be voting on this issue?

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question by saying that the Liberal Party would abstain. There are in fact reasons for and reasons against. That is not the question. The question concerns the debate over jurisdictions.

Should the government not instead ask the Supreme Court quite simply to decide just who has jurisdiction?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have to understand from the remarks of the Liberal member is that the Liberals are unable to take a stand, claiming legal uncertainty as to whether Quebec and the other provinces have had jurisdiction over securities since 1867.

The Liberal member, a former chief economist with the Royal Bank, mentioned this legal uncertainty. So, he will abstain. He does not have the desire to take a stand. However, he wants to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is like the tower in Pisa, always leaning in the same direction.

It is inconceivable to still be debating this idea which is contrary to the interests of Quebec and contrary to the unanimous will of the National Assembly. Are the Liberals incapable of making a decision? They sit on their hands and often on their head. They have to act and show that they are ready to take their responsibilities in terms of securities. There are 13 different agencies. The people are competent—international bodies say so. The Liberals have to make a decision immediately and make their position known right now to Quebeckers instead of waiting for the Supreme Court. Let them show it before the election.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We are not afraid to state our opinion. It is simply a matter of respecting the right to human values. As I was saying, the debate is on jurisdiction. The matter should simply be referred to the Supreme Court.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what has been said about jurisdiction and I would remind hon. members that the Hockin report specifically said that the option will exist for jurisdictions in Canada to join the common securities regulator or not. In this way, we totally respect the competencies of the respective jurisdictions in Canada, including Quebec. That is what is being proposed. That is not a question that needs to go to any court anywhere because no government and no jurisdiction would be obliged to join the national common securities regulator.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is as follows. If he really believes the provinces should be given free rein, why does he want this centralization?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance finds my remarks of interest.

I want to tell you right off that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I will go over the background of why we put forward this motion in this opposition day.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

First, there is unanimity in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but could I ask you to call for order?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member makes a good point. If members need to carry on conversations, they can do so outside of the chamber so the Speaker can hear the member. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will go about it step by step. When the government decided to order a study aimed at creating a Canada-wide securities regulator, Quebec's National Assembly reacted quite strongly, of course, and a debate ensued. The National Assembly adopted a motion unanimously, with support from every party: the provincial Liberal Party, which is in power, and the Parti Québécois. The motion was moved on October 16, 2007. It reads as follows:

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

The National Assembly reiterated its opposition on January 15, 2009, through a second unanimous motion requesting that the Assembly reiterate its strong opposition to the plan for a Canada-wide securities commission.

The reason Quebec's National Assembly moved two motions on this subject was to protect Quebec's securities system, which is a perfectly normal and reasonable position. Why create a single securities regulator in Canada when each province already has one? It is mind-boggling. The government is sending the message that it wants to centralize.

Centralization is not desirable. The securities regulation system works very well in Quebec and it works well in other provinces. We heard from different political parties about their concern with securities in their province. We have a centralizing federal government that wants to change everything and create a Canada-wide securities commission in order to control everything: Quebec's economy, other provinces' economies and investments. It is utterly unacceptable.

We will no longer have any powers because all decisions will be made at the federal level. We are getting mixed messages, though. We are told that we are a nation within a united country. Great. But what does that mean for Quebeckers? Absolutely nothing. We are told that we have a seat at UNESCO. That is not a seat. It is a folding chair in the back, and we have to go along with what Canada says. That is precisely what we got: a tiny stool for Quebec behind the Canadian representatives. It is not true that we have a seat at UNESCO with a real right to speak, as will be made clear. There is currently a meeting taking place, and we will be able to see exactly how things go. We will see whether it is true that we have the right to speak for real and if we will be allowed to disagree with the federal government. We will see how it goes over the next few weeks. That is unacceptable.

I would like to read a letter and I think it is important. I realize I have little time left, but it is important because this is a letter from the former finance minister to the current Minister of Finance. This is a very important letter dealing with securities. It states:

Dear Colleague,

I have noted the appointment of your expert panel charged with making suggestions and recommendations concerning securities regulation in Canada.

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

The passport system that the participating provinces and territories are setting up is a significant and unprecedented initiative to further simplify matters for pan-Canadian participants. It is a cooperative approach by the provinces and territories that enables them to continue to monitor their local interests. [We all have different interests, as she says in her letter.] The systematic refusal to acknowledge the advantages of such a system leads me to wonder whether all this effort is truly aimed at improving protection for the investing public.

I must say that the federal government could apply its energies much more productively if, in its fields of jurisdiction, it worked to more effectively crack down on economic crime rather than trying to impose itself in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Given the mixed, to say the least, results it has achieved in combating economic crime, in spite of the money spent, it seems to me that the federal government is not doing enough to assume its responsibilities, in particular regarding criminal law.

As for the expert panel, I note that you have ignored the proposals made to you by the Provincial-Territorial Council of Ministers of Securities Regulation. In so doing, I believe you have missed a good opportunity to obtain information that would have helped you better understand the point of view of the provinces and territories. Unfortunately, I fail to see that yet another panel, whose conclusions seem predictable to us, can bring anything new to this debate.

Believe me when I say that I am sorry to see you invest your effort and good will, which I in no way doubt, in such an ill-advised initiative when your energies could be applied much more productively.

This letter was written by Quebec's former finance minister, who was a Liberal Party minister and a federalist. It is very clear that she is against the idea because it really encroaches on our jurisdiction, our local purchasing, Quebec's economic development and all of the work that is being done already.

Moreover, it is still a question of duplication. Duplications are a drain of energy and cost a lot in time of economic crisis as the one we are going through. It costs a fortune. We need not invest in that right now. We should not waste public money, money that belongs to the ordinary Canadians who are out of work and going through financial hard times, to create a Canada-wide commission. It does not make any sense. It is not a good idea. The provinces and territories already have a system that is respected and admired on the international stage. Our passport system is ranked second in the world and it works well.

We have built an efficient system, but the Conservative government, with its heavy-handed approach, is destroying all the efforts we have invested during many years to establish efficient securities commissions in Quebec and in each of the other provinces and territories. When I consider the position of the Conservative government, I see that, once again, it is ready to overstep its jurisdiction.

I have only one minute left. It is too bad I was interrupted at the beginning of my speech; I would have had more time to speak.

We will fight against the measure. I see that the Liberals have decided not to vote on the motion although, in their time, they wanted to change the system themselves. Maybe thanks to a positive attitude in the House our motion will be adopted. I hope it will be. The NDP will support us. New Democrats members said so earlier. Maybe some Liberals will also support us.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that I spoke with some Liberal members who told me they agree with a buy local policy and a local development policy. This motion is the foundation for local buying. It allows us to manage our issues locally instead of having a Canada-wide commission deciding for us what we should do in our own communities.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her excellent speech on the topic of securities.

These days, the House is debating federal jurisdiction relative to the making of isotopes, employment insurance—we are calling for improvements to the program for Quebec—and health care.

The federal government only provides health care services to first nations people and it does not even do a good job of that. Yet, it is requesting new powers in the field of securities.

I believe that the federal government should at least manage its own areas of jurisdiction properly. Right now, it has enough to do without taking on a new area of jurisdiction in securities. In addition, Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously declared to the Government of Canada that it intended to continue managing its own securities industry.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Of course, the federal government should stay in its own jurisdictions and stop duplicating everything. The problem is apparent in many fields, such as immigration or health. Now, we have the problem of isotopes, and it is serious. At the Saint-Jérôme hospital, in my riding, 70% of appointments for cancer tests had to be cancelled due to an insufficient supply of isotopes. The House is not focusing on what really matters. The government is trying to move forward with the regulation of securities, while some problems which are much more important need to be solved and are within the federal jurisdictions. But the government cannot even face those problems.

We have been talking about employment insurance for months and even years. For years, we have been asking for the abolition of the two week waiting period. Why must we punish someone for losing her or his job? We are taking away two weeks of pay from a person who has a family, children, a mortgage and a car. It does not make sense. It would cost almost nothing for the government to eliminate the two week waiting period. People pay into employment insurance all of their working life. Why must they be penalized?

These are all issues we are asking the government to deal with, but instead of taking care of what really matters, it is trying to poke its nose into provincial jurisdictions and to mess up something which is already working very well in Quebec, in other provinces and in territories. That is the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleague did not support Canada's economic action plan which is helping our country, Canada, to pull through this economic crisis. A key element of this success is to bring down barriers. I would ask my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, to comment on the following quotation:

— I think that is the direction we are taking [to eliminate barriers]. I believe that any initiative to reduce red tape for our companies [because they are the economic mainstay for Canada], to facilitate harmonization and to remove barriers, is a step in the right direction. We have to make it easier for companies to do business in Canada than in the United States.

So said Clément Gignac, a former chief economist with National Bank Financial.

I would like to hear the comments of the member for Rivière-du-Nord. What concrete actions can she take here, in Ottawa, to help Quebec businesses?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not resort to demagogy, because I am not a demagogue, but I can tell you one thing: in Quebec, we work hard and we get things done. Things have to happen in Quebec. Quebec must make its own decisions and it is not up to the federal government to tell us what to do in our areas of jurisdiction. We can do the job ourselves.

However, when the government has a responsibility towards the provinces, with EI, for example, but does nothing to help the public, nothing to help the manufacturing industry and nothing to help people get back to work, then it is simply abrogating its responsibility.

The government should let us deal with our areas of jurisdiction and our securities. We will continue to do so anyway. Let us become a country. People will see. Things will get done in Quebec.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise here today to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.

The subject we are debating here today is very important for Quebec, because it denounces the federal government's determination, obsession even, to create a single securities commission, with the support of the Liberals in this House, despite the clear, unanimous opposition of the Quebec National Assembly. I mentioned the Liberals' support because if they do not vote, we only have to do the math to know that there are enough Conservatives to beat the Bloc and the NDP put together. By not voting, the Liberals are voting against the motion and letting the government do whatever it likes when it comes to securities.

The motion moved by the Bloc Québécois calls on the Conservatives and the Liberals to give up, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator. For some time now the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has wanted to concentrate all of Canada's financial administration activities in Toronto, even though this is a constitutional responsibility that belongs to Quebec. This falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, as clearly stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

For over 40 years, the idea of Canada having a single securities regulator has come up periodically. I do not understand why, in this time of recession and economic crisis, anyone would want to overhaul a system that works very well. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD have ranked our current securities market as the second best in the world. Why overhaul it? Does the government have nothing better to do in the next few weeks? The isotopes issue, for instance, could certainly be the focus of some debate and does warrant some attention.

Instead, this government is going against the members from Quebec and a unanimous motion in the Quebec National Assembly. All economic players agree: the securities commission falls under Quebec jurisdiction. We do not want to decentralize all our securities to Toronto, which would then have the power to run Quebec businesses. That is at cross purposes with our values as Quebeckers, as well as our financial and economic autonomy. In this time of recession, it is important to control all our economic levers and manage our own securities. That is crucial.

I am convinced that the objective of the federal government's position to meddle in a Quebec jurisdiction is also to limit once again the Quebec government's choices and abilities to take action as well as to weaken its economic power in order to annihilate it. However, Quebec is saying no. On two occasions, Quebec's National Assembly voted against the Conservative government's proposal. The Bloc Québécois will stand firm and ensure that this proposal is not adopted. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois is here. The Conservative and Liberal members representing Quebec will vote against the unanimous motions of Quebec's National Assembly, of the people they represent. That is shameful. Fortunately, the Bloc is here to defend Quebec. That is evident again today.

We should not forget that establishing a single regulator will jeopardize the survival of stock exchange activities in Montreal and foster an even greater concentration of the financial market in Toronto. Do the members from Quebec know what they are doing by voting with their government?

As I mentioned, the federal government's desire to establish a single regulator is nothing new. However, we have always managed to make the government back down on this proposal.

And yet, this desire was very clearly stated in the 2008 budget when the Minister of Finance again repeated that he was determined to introduce a bill to create a single regulator.

To attain this objective, the minister entrusted an expert panel with a very specific mandate. When work began on February 21, 2008, it was very disturbing that the Minister of Finance directed the panel to develop a model common securities act.

Clearly, by moving forward with a bill, the government has decided to go against the unanimous will of the National Assembly, which had unanimously denounced this federal initiative. We have a democracy in Quebec. Three parties were present. The Action démocratique du Québec is not the Parti Québécois. It does not have the same political objectives. The Liberals, who are federalists, are against the Conservative government's proposal for a pan-Canadian securities commission. Therefore, why go forward with it?

As expected, the expert panel recommended the creation of this commission. In addition, its report calls for a mechanism that would allow corporations to bypass laws adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec by authorizing them to work directly with the pan-Canadian organization.

In short, the report itself shows the desire of the Conservatives and the Liberals to impose this single commission, despite the legitimate objections of Quebec.

In response to the stubbornness of federal Conservative and Liberal members—the fact that the Liberals will not vote on this proposal is indicative of a position—the Quebec National Assembly once again restated its opposition on January 15, 2009, just before the 2009 federal budget was tabled, through a second unanimous motion that expressed its opposition to the federal government's approach.

However, when the Conservative government tabled the 2009 budged, in the middle of a crisis, it committed $150 million to implement this Canada-wide commission. We do not have money for the unemployed, we do not have money for the manufacturing or forestry industries, but we have money to invest in a jurisdiction that belongs to the provinces and to Quebec.

In conclusion, I am convinced that the federal government's desire to interfere in one of Quebec's jurisdictions is an attempt to once again limit the Government of Quebec's choices and ability to act. The Bloc Québécois is here to prevent that. We must not forget that the creation of a single regulator would threaten exchange activities. As I already said, the fact that the government wants to do this is nothing new. It is nothing new that a federal government, Liberal or Conservative, would want to centralize all of Canada's financial administration activities in Toronto, when this is one of Quebec's constitutional responsibilities.

For the Liberals and the Conservatives, this simply fulfils the common goal of handing over to the federal government all of the major economic powers, so that the central government has greater latitude to act. The Bloc is against this, and we will not let them do it. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is here to represent the interests of Quebeckers, because the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec will vote in favour of a proposal that goes against the very interests of Quebeckers.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to listen to the parliamentary secretary, one would think the national securities regulator would have stopped the whole meltdown of the economy last fall. He has basically said that all our Canadian competitors on the world stage have single securities regulators. Guess what? None of those single securities regulators in any of those other countries were able to do anything about the whole scandal involving the asset-backed commercial paper, or any other financial instruments that got us into all the trouble we are in right now.

Why does he think a Canadian securities regulator would be any smarter or any sharper than all the other regulators that missed this big elephant in the room last fall?