Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Charlottetown.
Out of respect, I will start by reading the motion introduced by the hon. member from the Bloc:
That this House denounce the government’s unrelenting efforts to marginalize the Quebec nation, in particular by depriving it of the major economic lever of securities regulation, a matter that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and for which they have established a harmonized regulatory system recognized for its effectiveness by the OECD and the World Bank, among others, and that it demand, along with Quebec’s National Assembly and the business community in Quebec, that the government immediately withdraw its draft bill.
Since the constitutionality of a national securities commission has, as we know, been referred to the Supreme Court, I do not see the relevance of this motion, which appears to me to be a semantic exercise only. However, to put it all in context, let me give you an overview of the general situation.
First, let us remember that 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.
In general, the agencies that regulate securities oversee four important areas:
First, capital leveraging through the sale of securities such as private offerings and primary distributions.
Second, corporate transparency and the continual disclosure of relevant information to investors.
Third, enforcement of the securities regulations and prevention of deceptive or fraudulent behaviour.
Fourth, the qualifications of securities traders and their good reputation and accreditation.
As for the provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec are currently opposed to a single securities regulator. Ontario, on the other hand, is in favour. British Columbia has made it known that it would be part of such a program only if provincial jurisdiction were respected. In October 2007, as we know, 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”, and that the federal government should not interfere.
Under the current regulations, securities in Canada are subject to directives from 13 provincial and territorial authorities.
In order to make a balanced presentation, I must set out the arguments on both sides of the issue.
These are the main arguments against the current system.
It is very expensive for corporations that want to attract capital to comply with all the provinces' regulations. Time is an important factor in leveraging capital, and compliance with multiple provincial regulatory schemes delays the start of negotiations.
Investors in the less populous provinces may be denied access to certain investments. Because of differences and disparities in the existing regulations, it is sometimes difficult to ensure they are enforced. More resources would have to be devoted to this.
In support of the present “multijurisdictional” model, the provinces make the following arguments:
First, it allows innovative ideas to be developed that can be adapted and be more responsive to the specific features of regional markets. Second, regulations can be more effectively administered, as the agencies with that authority acquire experience and knowledge in their regional markets.
Third, a common regulatory agency might impose compliance rules that were designed for larger multinational users and might exclude the small regional businesses, which would not be good, and thus cut them off from financing.
Fourth, the multijurisdictional model protects regional securities infrastructure that the provinces and territories have created with accountants, notaries, underwriters and other professionals.
In response 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. The Canadian Securities Administrators also introduced a harmonized electronic data system for analysis and research to make information available, called SEDAR, and a simplified national registration system for securities traders.
Once again, since we do not expect a decision to be made for another 18 or 24 months, the Bloc is trying to score political points with this motion today. We completely agree with the Bloc that the existing expertise in the different regions of Canada, particularly in Quebec and Montreal, should not be sacrificed or displaced in order to create a single commission. The Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec has a very good reputation and is recognized around the world.
Furthermore, the Conservative government's divisive approach is completely unacceptable. This is another example of the Prime Minister's poor track record on provincial-federal relations.
However, since we are still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on this issue, and since the issue will not likely budge for another year and a half, the Bloc's motion is completely useless.
One thing is certain: the provinces are divided on this issue. So it would be counter-productive for Parliament to vote prematurely, when it is the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that must set the boundaries of the discussions between the provinces and the federal government. Just like Quebec, we are completely opposed to displacing the financial expertise we have in the Montreal region.
Why does the Bloc not want to wait to hear the Supreme Court opinion? Why does it want to open this debate now, when there is no serious bill on the horizon?
I am getting to the key point of my speech. Liberal governments have long been recognized for their solid financial leadership. Our stable financial system, developed by the Liberals, became an international model during the economic crisis. The best approach is to protect investments and to ensure that each of the regions does not lose its specific knowledge.
The Liberals agree that when it comes to provincial-federal relations, the Prime Minister has failed, and we are opposed to the Conservatives' unilateral approach that just results in tensions. On many occasions we have urged the government to get the opinion of the Supreme Court. Now that it has, we just have to wait to hear from the court.
So let us wait for the Supreme Court's opinion.