Yvan Loubier

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

This is horrible. This is disgusting.

[Business Tax System, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister believe for even a minute that those committee members would agree to chop off the very branch they are sitting on? Not likely. It is anything but logical.

What I am asking the Minister of Finance under the circumstances is this: Is he not in the process of providing a first class funeral for business tax reform? If that is what he is up to, let him admit it.

[Business Tax System, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in making his budget public last week, the Minister of Finance announced his intention to establish a technical committee of outside experts on the business tax system. Some of its members are representatives of accounting firms that have affiliates in

countries considered as tax havens and advise big business on how to avoid paying Canadian taxes.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. How can he believe that the public will have confidence in a committee whose membership includes people whose own firms take advantage of tax havens, and whose very business consists precisely in advising clients on how to reduce or eliminate completely taxes payable to Revenue Canada?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again, I must say that the Minister of Finance's last statement is also inaccurate. Cash transfers controlled by the federal government will shrink from $18 billion in 1995-96 to $11 billion, a drop of $7 billion. He should not be talking about tax points, as this is none of his business. If not for Jean Lesage, who managed to wrest these tax points from the federal government, today Quebec would be taking a quite a licking.

Will the minister admit that, as a result of the cut distribution criteria, Quebec will pay proportionally more than any other Canadian province in the next five years?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister just said is inaccurate. It is not true that the federal government cut proportionally more than the Quebec government did in its first budget, which cut 30 per cent. What it has done is reduce its deficit on the backs of the provinces. That is what the government did.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that the federal government intends to cut transfer payments to the provinces for social programs by 33 per cent over the next three years.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. How does the Minister of Finance explain the difference between his speech, which talks about an increase in transfers to the provinces for social programs, and his own budget figures, according to which payments to the provinces will be cut by more than a third?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we often say that we should sleep on something, and I did. However, I am still of the same opinion as yesterday, and I have the same arguments against the last budget of the Minister of Finance.

To us, this budget is window-dressing. It was a big production meant, first and foremost, to hide the real damaging effects of the finance minister's measures on the economy and on jobs, and to hide also the real state of the federal government's finances.

The minister who, for months, has been saying that he is a good manager, that he will reach his budgetary targets and make sure we see a definite improvement in public finances, forgot to tell us that the accumulated debt will top $600 billion this year. He forgot to tell us also that since he has been in the job, and after three consecutive budgets, he has added more than $110 billion to the debt. Is that good management of public finances? Is that controlling the medium-term debt? Is that having regained control of public finances? I wonder whether it is not the contrary. I does not make any sense.

If it had not been for the Unemployment Insurance Fund which, after a reform that everybody is denouncing across Canada, produced an annual surplus of $5 billion; if it had not been for the systematic transfer of deficit problems to the provinces; if it had not been for the economic growth of the last two years, the Minister of Finance would certainly not have reached his target for the deficit, which is 3 per cent of GDP.

It is by tampering with reality, by dipping into a fund to which it does not contribute any more-the unemployment insurance fund-by dumping its responsibilities onto the provinces and by taking into account the evolution of the economic situation only that the Minister of Finance gets to present this overall picture.

But this is no way to improve public finances. This is no way to put public finances back on the right track. There are two ways, and both involve systematic elimination of the shameful waste that we have seen for the last two and a half years. Since we have been elected, we have come to know the machinery of government. We know there is waste, we know there is duplication, we know there is a lot of overlap.

As far as this first way of really improving public finances, the Minister of Finance announced yesterday that the fight against waste is over. This is no joke. Even in his budget plan, we see in his table on page 14 that, in the direct budget savings for 1996-97, he expects additional cuts in the government machine of 0.0; that means zero. There are no cuts this year. It is over. There is no more waste, no more duplication, no more overlap, no more fat anywhere. It is zero.

Next year, it will be 0.2; what does it mean? It means $200 million in a budget of over $150 billion. It is an insult to taxpayers in Quebec and Canada to present such a plan for reducing waste, for downsizing the cumbersome government machine. And the Minister of Finance claims to be a good manager of public finances.

Why, for example, did he not follow the suggestions of the official opposition, which asked him, among other things, to continue to make massive cuts in national defence? It is not normal that, in peace time, the armed forces still require an investment of tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars in different types of war time equipment. There is talk, for example, of anti-tank missiles or ultra sophisticated equipment for submarines.

There is talk of investing in all kinds of weapons and equipment, when all experts agree that we could cut $1.5 billion from the defence budget and amend DND's mandate so as to provide for the maintenance of peacekeeping forces around the world. That is the way to make public finances healthier and more rational-common sense would also prevail.

Why did they not propose, for example-and I am sure that most taxpayers in Canada and Quebec would be agreeable-cutting the nearly $50 million allocated to the other House, to parliamentarians who doze off during the throne speech? People noticed that, too. The time has come not only to get rid of the deadwood but also to give in to official opposition demands to eliminate, once and for all, all appropriations to these people who are paid to do nothing or to sleep.

As for the "jobs, jobs, jobs" that were promised in the last three years, this slogan can still be heard but it is getting fainter and fainter as the months go by, for the very good reason that this

government not only did not put forward significant measures to create good, lasting jobs but also made cuts, in the finance minister's last budget, that apply to the levers or ways used to create jobs.

Let us take, for instance, the finance minister's attack on labour sponsored venture capital funds. This is incredible. The Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, for example, works well and helps maintain 40,000 jobs. Yesterday, the finance minister decided to pull the rug out from under their feet- this also applies to the newly created CSN fund-thus undermining this instrument that is so important to Quebecers. This is not normal.

It is not normal to talk about creating jobs while at the same time undermining the basic tools used to create jobs and spread the benefits of economic growth throughout Quebec. The same goes for Canadian funds in all parts of Canada. This is what they call taking measures to promote employment? Had we known this, we would have explained to the people that when they were talking about "jobs, jobs, jobs", what they really meant was job cuts. That is what the government was proposing.

Student summer employment, that too is to laugh at the face of students in Quebec and Canada. A sum of $120 million has been earmarked for student employment creation, it is true. But did you know how much money was taken away from students through transfer cuts to post-secondary education and so on? This year, the government has cut or plans to cut $150 million.

Do you know how much will be cut next year? Approximately $500 million. On the one hand, $650 million is taken away from students over two years, while, on the other hand, $120 million will be provided to create summer jobs. I can understand why they are upset and why they came out, Mr. Rebello first, to denounce the government's attitude. They are being laughed at.

Another measure designed to discourage job creation was announced yesterday in the finance minister's speech. As you know, to maintain one cent of the employees' or employers' contribution to the UI fund, the jobs of 6,000 Quebecers or Canadians have to be sacrificed.

The Minister of Finance could have announced yesterday plans to substantially reduce the unemployment insurance premiums paid by employers and employees. Instead of appropriating the UI fund surplus he could have announced that it would be used to alleviate some of the problems faced by the economy these past couple of years in creating employment. He could have come out and said: "We will balance our budget by systematically eliminating waste and create thousands of jobs by lowering employer and employee premiums".

Instead, premium levels remained unchanged. When we hear that this government is about jobs, never has it been more obvious

than yesterday that this government is working against the creation of the thousands of jobs our economies need, in Quebec and Canada.

Regarding the Canada social transfer, the minister announced, and immediately recanted-but it is nonetheless written on page 59 of his budget plan-that cuts would be shared among the provinces on the basis of population.

What does this mean? I will repeat it over and over again: This means that Quebec, which represents about 25 per cent of the population, will support 40 per cent of the cuts to the Canada social transfer. On page 59 of his budget plan, the minister said, and I quote: "-each province's allocation will be further adjusted to more closely reflect its share of Canada's population".

Solutions are thus being delayed by a few years, but the machinery is clearly on the move to have Quebec absorb 40 per cent of the cuts to be made under the social program transfer.

Yesterday, the minister told us: "Do not worry. The issue will be discussed. Nothing is definite yet". Well, maybe nothing is definite, but there seems to be a clear and precise intent in the budget toward making cuts based on population, and Quebec would clearly lose out if other criteria than population were applied. That is unacceptable.

Does anybody know what the cuts imposed by the federal government on the provinces will amount to this year and the next? These cuts of $2.5 billion plus $4.5 billion will total $7 billion in the next two years, and Quebec alone will lose $650 million this year, more than $1 billion next year, and 5 billion over the three following years. For the government, stabilizing public finance means offloading its deficit onto the provinces and making Quebec pay more than its fair share.

With this budget, not only harmful budgetary measures are being introduced, but principles are being trampled.

Some struggles lasted for decades, but now the gains that were made are simply pushed aside. I am referring to the measures proposed in the budget regarding old age security and women.

The Minister of Finance decided that the progress made by Quebec and Canadian women was not important. In just three lines, he pushed aside what was gained over 50 years of hard struggle to promote gender equality and financial independence for women by making these priorities secondary issues and moral values for Quebecers and Canadians.

The minister proposes to use the family income as a criterion to determine the level of benefits to be paid to Quebec and Canadian households. This clearly penalizes women. Earlier today, I listened

to the reaction of some women. They were outraged by the fact that the government's action will set them back several decades behind.

Remember, not that long ago, when a woman had to get her husband's signature to borrow money at the bank. What difference is there between using the household income, to which the man is usually the main contributor, and the way loans were granted to women a few years ago? In terms of principles involved, it is a shame to have included such a measure in a budget.

Let us now take a look at the tax system. Yesterday, the official opposition made what I would call a small gain. Why? Because the Minister of Finance has finally understood that there were inequities in Canada's tax system, that there were all kinds of loopholes in the corporate tax system, and that, ultimately, every Quebec and Canadian taxpayer pays for the loopholes used mostly by major corporations to avoid paying their due to Revenue Canada.

After urging and pressuring the government and the Minister of Finance for two and a half years, we have finally convinced them that it is necessary to do a major clean-up in the corporate tax system, whose exemptions cost us at least $10 billion annually-and this figure is based only on the measures that are known, because we do not know the impact of just as many loopholes.

The minister has just realized that you clean up government finances not by making cuts that impact on provinces, not by making cuts in the unemployment insurance account, not by surfing on the economic conditions, but by taking action in an area which I feel is fundamental, taxation.

We see that, while he realized that, he does not really intend to do anything to remedy unfairness in the tax system. Why? For two reasons. First, he proposes to establish a working group, which he calls a technical committee on business taxation. The members of that working group will be mandated to work behind closed doors, in camera, without anybody knowing where their discussions are going and exactly what tax breaks are available to businesses-some might no longer have any justification-and the cost of these tax breaks to the public purse. If they work behind closed doors, it may be to hide a little strategy that would go like this: change two or three tax breaks; then, once two or three of them have been changed, say that nothing more can be done.

That is not what the minister was asked to do. That is not what Quebecers and Canadians expected from the finance minister. We asked for an open process, for a special parliamentary committee that would swiftly review, in the open-that is what democracy is all about- the whole range of tax breaks available to big corporations at a cost of billions of dollars to the public purse, year after year.

This is what we wanted and what the people want. Instead of that, we are faced with a closed process, a review that will take place behind closed doors. What kind of credibility can such a review have? How can we trust it?

There is something far worse than that, however. If one looks at the membership of this working group, one realizes that it does not make any sense to have people from corporations or universities who not only have their own set agenda, but may also be in a conflict of interest because of the committee's mandate. We notice for example that one member comes from the Simon Fraser Institute, an institution not particularly well known for social-democratic leanings. It is not known to favour big business having to pay its fair share of taxes. It clearly came out in favour of cuts in social programs as the only means to get our financial house in order. Here we have a representative of that venerable institution on a committee whose mandate is to review the corporate tax system and point out to us unfair aspects of the system we can deal with so that all corporations, and not only some of them, pay their fair share. That is quite something. It certainly does not do much for the credibility of this working group.

But there is even worse than that. People from Ernst & Young and Price Waterhouse will sit on this technical committee whose mandate, I repeat, is to find out how we can close loopholes corporations and big taxpayers use to avoid tax. One of these is tax havens. For the last two years and a half, we have been decrying the tax treaties Canada has signed with countries that are considered like real tax havens, such as the Caribbean or many others. In these 11 countries, corporate income tax rates are a lot lower than ours, something like 10 per cent of the Canadian tax rate. Therefore, profits are transferred to affiliates set up in these tax havens, taxed at a much lower rate than the Canadian one, and then sent back here. These profits are not subjected to any further taxation measure. By transferring their profits and losses in this way, corporations manage to avoid paying any taxes to Revenue Canada.

Well, can you believe that the two companies I referred to earlier, Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young, both have affiliates in countries considered as tax havens? That is unbelievable.

As the Leader of the Opposition put it so eloquently yesterday and again today, that is like inviting the fox into the henhouse, and I would even go so far as to say that it is like inviting the fox to lunch.

"Price Waterhouse, P.O. Box 3910, Nassau". Do the hon. members want the phone number? I have it. "Ernst & Young, Nassau, the Bahamas". "Ernst & Young, Gibraltar", that is another country considered to be a tax haven. "Ernst & Young, the Cayman Islands", the best of all tax havens, with 28,000 companies for 30,000 people. Incredible, right? "Ernst & Young, rue d'Italie, Geneva", Switzerland being another famous tax haven. "Price Waterhouse, Les Échelons Street-nothing to do with taxation echelons, as we call them in French-, Guernsey", the British Isles; another marvellous tax haven. "Price Waterhouse, P.

O. Box 3910, Nassau, the Bahamas", again, I have the fax and phone numbers for those who think it might be useful.

That does not make any sense. Quebecers and Canadians are being laughed at. The minister no longer has the political will to solve the problems related to corporate income tax. He no longer has the political will to do so. This hare-brained scheme, this creation of a closed group with obvious conflicts of interests, proves it. They talk of a delay in the production of a paper, which could come out sometime by the end of the year, because it is still on the agenda. This paper will probably be released after the election.

This reminds me of the initiative that the Minister of Finance announced last year concerning family trusts. He said: "Yes, we will abolish some privileges associated with family trusts but only in 1999", giving all those with millions and millions of dollars stashed in these luxury tax exemptions enough time to find other tax shelters, thus denying the government any new money, since capital will have fled by 1999 to other tax havens in order to avoid taxation.

The only tax initiative in this paper by the Minister of Finance is the creation of the Canada Revenue Commission. The only purpose of this sole initiative is to once again isolate Quebec. In his paper titled: Budget Speech , which he read to us yesterday, the finance minister told us: ``Canadians know full well that there is only one taxpayer. A number of provinces have asked us why there was not, as well, only one tax collector?''

This is the object of the Canada Revenue Commission.

Has anyone realized what we are saying in these two sentences to Quebec, which is the only Canadian province to levy its own income tax, the only one that acquired, the very hard way, since Mr. Jean Lesage, the tax autonomy that it had always wanted and that went with Quebec's distinct society?

Does the minister of Finance realize that what he is saying about the possibility of setting up a national revenue commission, combined with the provision in the speech from the throne concerning the possibility that the federal government would create a Canada-wide program in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, where a majority of provinces agree, makes for a very explosive mixture? Does he realize that?

Sometimes, I wonder if the minister of Finance is aware of the impact of his budgetary policies. Ever since taking power, he has announced a whole series of measures aimed at, firstly, isolating Quebec, and secondly, further centralizing all aspects of social, economic and political life in this country.

He has announced a national securities commission, in a field of exclusive Quebec jurisdiction. No problem, let us do it! Last year, he announced Bill C-100 on financial institutions. Once again, the Bank of Canada and other federal institutions are moving in and even shoving aside institutions such as the Quebec Securities Commission or the Inspector General for Financial Institutions.

Now we are being told that it might be a good idea to do away with duplications and overlaps, and why not, while we are at it, do away as well with the tax autonomy of the Quebec government. Now that takes a lot of nerve! On top of that, he has something planned which has been in the works for about two years, and that is the implementation of a Canada-wide sales tax.

This national sales tax would be administered by the Canada Revenue Commission; as a result, if the government of Quebec decides it does not want this second version of the GST, it will be forced to accept it because it is said clearly in the speech from the throne that if a province wishes to opt out of this new national program, it could do so only if it proposed to apply exactly the same program with the same criteria or equivalences in the province.

In other words, if the federal government decides to create a new national sales tax that is not wanted in Quebec because the Quebec government wishes to control its tax base, what goods and services to tax or not to tax, it will not be able to do so because it will be forced to accept the new tax, a majority of provinces having decided otherwise in its place. Those are the hidden intentions behind the budget speech and the orientations of the speech from the throne.

When we are talking about disguising, that is also what we mean. And it is ironic, as I said yesterday, and I will say it again today, that when it is speaking of eliminating duplications and overlaps, the federal government is not looking in its backyard, but in the provinces' backyards. That is where, in its opinion, duplications and overlaps are to be found, even in strictly provincial fields of jurisdiction. That takes the cake!

One last point on which I would like to inform the people of Quebec, and of Canada as well, is the treatment of the milk subsidy, which affects particularly Quebec's milk producers.

You will recall that, last year, the minister of Finance cut $32 million in the budget for Quebec's milk producers. While cutting $32 million in the budget for Quebec's agricultural sector, it planned to increase by $2.9 billion the credits extended to the Prairie provinces. It planned to make $32 million worth of cuts in

Quebec while increasing by $2.9 billion the credits allowed to the Prairie provinces. Such is the Canadian agricultural policy.

What the minister told us yesterday is that not only did Quebec pay more than its share while the Prairies received several billion dollars more, but also that the government has made a unilateral decision to cut all subsidies to dairy producers in Quebec and Canada. This decision affects Quebec producers in particular since approximately 47 per cent of industrial milk production subject to subsidies comes from Quebec. Strangely, this measure hurts Quebec. There are no phoney committees set up, no panels of experts who are in a position of conflict of interest and who are prejudiced. The government has decided to cut and that is all there is to it.

Do you know how much Quebec dairy producers will lose? Between $80 and $100 million. In tough times, at a time when they have to adjust to the new rules imposed by the recent World Trade Organization agreement, to the opening of the borders and to stronger competition, at a time when they have to consolidate their industry to be more competitive in a global trade environment, the government is depriving them of $100 million, and we are supposed to think that this is a good budget. That is going a bit too far.

The conclusion is the same as yesterday. I hear my Liberal colleagues who are laughing. They think that this inequity, this unfairness toward Quebec is funny.

In closing, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word "That" with the following:

"the budget statement by the Minister of Finance be rejected by this House because: it proposes no real job creation initiatives and does not reduce government spending, most notably the approximately $50 million appropriated annually to the Senate; it uses the Unemployment Insurance Fund surplus to reduce the budget deficit and reduces social transfers to the provinces; it undermines labour sponsored venture capital funds, such as the FTQ and CSN funds; it does not propose a transparent process for achieving genuine reform of corporate taxation, or an unequivocal determination to undertake such reform; it undermines the provinces' fiscal autonomy; it eliminates subsidies to dairy producers without offering them adequate financial compensation; it jeopardizes women's financial independence by adopting household income as the basis for determining seniors' benefits."

[The Budget, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's 1996-97 budget tells us nothing except that last year's bad news will apply this year as planned, and that all of the negative measures will continue, and will be even worse.

The government will continue along the same path. As far as dumping the deficit on the provinces is concerned, the government will continue its drastic cuts to social programs, to the tune of $7 billion over the next two years.

The government will continue to make use of the surplus from the unemployment insurance fund, $5 billion yearly, when it has not contributed to that fund for a number of years.

The government will keep on going without any significant measures for job creation. That is what it has told us today.

The worst part of all this is that the Minister of Finance is patting himself on the back for having restored healthy public finances. He is patting himself on the back for having applied the precepts of sound public financial management when, during his time at the helm of the Department of Finance, he has managed in two years to add over $113 billion to the cumulative debt of the federal government.

Not everything in this budget is bad, however, and I would like to start by pointing out one positive element, the measure concerning child support payments. I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal appreciation and that of my colleagues to Mrs. Thibodeau for her monumental battle to gain equality for women.

Since this measure will bring in tens of millions of dollars in new taxes, I cordially ask the Minister of Finance and the government to consider the following proposal: he could use these funds for transfers to the provinces, transfer part of it to the Government of Quebec, which has family policy levers to help the most disadvantaged families and children in Quebec and Canadian society.

My congratulations, however, stop here, because a closer look at the budget reveals that the minister deserves no congratulations.

It reveals first and foremost that the minister has given up in the fight against waste, duplication and overlap, because this budget contains no new measure to trim government machinery. We have been looking at this government for two and a half years, and God knows there is an enormous amount of wastage. On the basis of the report by the Liberal majority on the finance committee the government is abandoning its fight against waste.

Our second criticism is that the Minister of Finance did not speak the whole truth about the old age security system. The minister's proposals run headlong into 50 years of women's struggles for equality and financial independence, since the family income will now be the basis for determining old age security benefits and all the credits for seniors. It is disgraceful.

As regards taxation, we are pleased to some extent that the minister gave in to arguments about the unfairness of the tax system, particularly corporate taxation. After two and a half years it was high time he did. It took him two years and a half to realize that the tax system was giving undue preference to big business, which makes good use of outrageous loopholes, and to accept a forceful argument from the official opposition for an in-depth review of our tax system.

But, as I said, the minister only went part of the way, because he is now calling for a closed review of the corporate tax system, a process which is open only to great tax experts, great corporate tax lawyers who, at this very moment, are advising big corporations on the means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to Revenue Canada.

But there is more. Some of the members on this new technical committee represent companies which also have affiliates in countries considered as tax havens. That takes some nerve. Among the members of this committee will be representatives of companies that have affiliates in countries considered as tax havens, companies that benefit from special tax rates and avoid paying what they would normally have to give Revenue Canada.

That is not what we were asking the government to do. We asked for a more open process. We asked for a special parliamentary committee made up of government members, members of the official opposition and members of the second opposition party who would have to be accountable to elected representatives, to the public, to all those who expect us to be responsible and to disclose the inequities in our tax system. Instead, the Minister of Finance opted for a process behind closed doors.

We are also deploring the fact that, after announcing in the throne speech that a Canadian Securities Commission would be set up, a commission that would interfere in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the Minister of Finance now wonders "Why should there not be only one tax collector in Canada? Why not set up a national revenue agency?"

Is it not a way of isolating Quebec once again? Is it not a way of forcing Quebec to fall back into the line? Is it not a way of telling Quebec that it must let go of all the financial and tax leverage that it has been fighting for for 35 years to make way for a national entity? Is it not a way of establishing an institution to manage the proposal made by the government regarding a single, Canada-wide, sales tax to replace the GST? That proposal is unacceptable.

When we are talking about eliminating duplication and overlap, it is funny to see how the government is always willing to take away some of Quebec's powers and keep them for itself. That is easy to do.

It is also easy for the government to go after small investors, those in Quebec in particular, with the kind of measures proposed in this budget that will weaken one of the instruments we are proud of, namely the Fonds de solidarité of the FTQ.

The government prefers to go after small investors, to go after tools which primarily serve to create jobs, rather than taking on big business taxation.

Here is another measure against Quebec: the government speaks of eliminating the milk subsidy even if it knows full well that 40 per cent of the subsidy goes to Quebec. Attacking Quebec is easy.

In conclusion, the 1996-97 budget of the Minister of Finance is only cosmetic, it is rather election-minded. It glosses over the negative effects of the last budget. It glosses over the government's inability to reduce its rate of expenditure. It glosses over the government's true intentions as regards taxation reform. It glosses over the government's inability to give a boost to the job market. It glosses over this government's desire to make Quebec toe the line. For these reasons, I will advise my colleagues to vote against the budget.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Securities, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I see that even the Minister of Finance does not know what he is talking about. He should ask the current Minister of Immigration who, when the letter was sent to the President of the Privy Council, was in Mr. Johnson's cabinet. She shared Mr. Johnson's opinion that the federal government should not interfere in the securities industry, an area that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec government.

Again, I ask the Minister of Finance, who normally gives me serious answers, a question that is as serious as the first one, in the hope that he will give me a straight answer this time around.

Will the minister admit that this new intervention in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction could have a negative impact on securities operations in Quebec by fostering a gradual transfer of these operations, including those of the Montreal Stock Exchange, from Montreal to Toronto?

[Securities, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his February 16, 1994 letter to the then President of the Privy Council, former Quebec premier Daniel Johnson wrote, and I quote: "The Government of Quebec has never been in favour of a greater federal role in the securities industry, which is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, it has regularly expressed its opposition to federal initiatives in this area".

My question is for the Minister of Finance, since the secretary of state is not taking this seriously. Can the minister, who knows Quebec well, deny that the establishment of a federal securities commission would go against Quebec's position and marginalize the Quebec institutions working in this area, while reducing their ability to intervene?

[Securities, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the secretary of state. It is incredible. He said that there is a proliferation of agencies and yet, the federal government is going to create new ones, top-loading the securities business. Mr. Daniel Johnson, who was Quebec Premier in 1994, wrote a letter to the minister or to the secretary of state, stating that Quebec and the then labour minister were adamantly clinging to the securities area. So, why this plan to create securities commissions?

How can the government say in the speech from the throne that it is going to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction and, at the same time, that it is going to interfere in these areas, claiming there is a certain proliferation? Such an argument does not make any sense.