Carole Lavallée

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I see that I have some fans in this chamber, or at least one.

The budget implementation bill, Bill C-10, presents various initiatives contained in last January's budget, in particular the transition office for the single securities regulator. The Bloc Québécois has introduced amendments to delete clauses 295 to 299, that is to eliminate the clauses to establish a single securities regulator. The government, through this bill, wants to establish a transition office for the Canadian securities regulator and would provide an operating budget of $150 million for this office.

The Expert Panel on Securities Regulation in Canada, appointed by the Minister of Finance, tabled its final report in January 2009. It is proposing the creation of a federal regulator for securities, over which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. This is an encroachment into Quebec's jurisdiction. The report proposes various mechanisms to implement the project without agreement from Quebec and the provinces. Furthermore, the report also proposes that the federal government use legal recourse to force dissenting provinces to comply with the federal project. The 2009 budget reflects the recommendations of the expert panel and reiterates the government's commitment to establishing a single regulator in Canada.

The Bloc Québécois would like to reiterate its opposition to the creation of a national securities commission. Instead, it will support harmonization of the rules governing the financial system through a passport mechanism, like that of the European community, in order to maintain the autonomy and jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The Bloc Québécois will continue to vigorously argue against the creation of such a commission and will continue to fully support the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec.

I want to go back one year and talk about the 2008 budget, which confirmed this Conservative government's intention to set up a single securities commission. At the time, the minister reiterated in his budget his intention to introduce federal legislation to establish a single regulator. To this end, the minister commissioned a panel of experts to draft a bill to create a single securities commission. He said, “I am asking the panel to develop a model common securities act to create a Canadian advantage in global capital markets.” That is what is written in a news release issued by the Minister of Finance on February 21, 2008.

The panel tabled its final report at the end of 2008. That document includes a series of measures to establish a single securities commission. In his 2009 budget, the minister welcomed the recommendations made by the panel in its report. Moreover, the budget allocated $150 million to set up a committee to implement those recommendations.

This is unacceptable. The Minister of Finance is stubbornly going ahead with an initiative that goes against the unanimous will of Quebec's National Assembly and that is a flagrant violation of Quebec's constitutional jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois will continue to defend Quebec against the centralizing views of this federal government.

For over 40 years, the idea of a single securities regulatory body has been surfacing every now and then. Since 2003, the issue has again moved to the forefront of federal politics. The Liberals, who were in office at the time, set up an expert panel to look at the possibility of establishing a single regulatory body in Canada.

In 2005, the Ontario government mandated a group of experts, led by Purdy Crawford, to examine the benefits of a single securities regulatory system. Of course, the Crawford report supported Ontario's arguments in favour of a single regulator.

The 2006 federal budget revisited the idea. In that budget, the government announced that it planned to work with the provinces and territories to set up a common securities regulator. That position was confirmed in the November 2006 economic update and the 2007 budget.

In June 2007, following a meeting of ministers responsible for securities, the current Conservative Minister of Finance announced plans to set up a working group to, first, study the outcomes, principles and performance measures that would best anchor securities regulation and the pursuit of a Canadian advantage in global capital markets. The group was also supposed to study how Canada could best promote and advance proportionate, more principles-based regulations, starting from existing harmonized legislation and national and multilateral regulatory instruments. It was supposed to look into how this progress could facilitate, and be reinforced by, better coordination of enforcement efforts.

In September 2007, the minister announced that the group would focus on how to set up a single regulatory organization instead of looking at how effective the current system is. When the Minister of Finance announced that work had begun on February 21, 2008, he confirmed his intention to change the expert panel's mandate and have it focus on drafting model legislation to create a single securities commission.

Budget 2008 confirmed the Conservative government's intention to set up a single securities commission. In his budget, the minister reiterated his plan to introduce the bill before us to create a single regulatory body. Quebec's National Assembly rejected the federal government's initiative and unanimously passed a motion to that effect on October 16, 2007. I will read it: “That the National Assembly ask the federal government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project”.

Authority over securities is given to the provinces by virtue of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights under section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Conservatives ignored Quebec's motion. In the November 2008 economic and fiscal update and in this budget, the Minister of Finance reiterated his intention to set up a single securities commission in blatant disregard of his own Constitution.

Not long after the economic statement was tabled, the expert panel set up by the minister tabled its report, which, as expected, suggests creating a single securities regulator. It also proposes a mechanism that would allow companies to disregard the laws of Quebec and do business with the Canada-wide regulator, ignoring the organization in Quebec. In short, this report reflects what the minister wants: to impose a single securities regulator despite Quebec's legitimate objections.

Lastly, when budget 2008 was tabled, the current Minister of Finance again expressed confidence in the expert panel report. In addition, he made $150 million available to implement his proposed Canada-wide commission.

The Conservative government is prepared to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions in order to advance its plans for a single, Canada-wide securities commission. The federal Liberals are in favour of creating a single institution. All the political parties in Quebec are against this initiative. The current passport system works. Under this system, a company that registers in one participating province can do business with people in all the other participating provinces. The first phase of implementation was completed last fall, and the second phase is under way.

[Committees of the House, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for Laval to tell us about the Conservatives' position on the status of women. What is their true position, the one on paper as well as the one in practice?

[Arts and Culture, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is suggesting that the support programs for touring abroad are a waste.

President Obama, however, is showing transparency by promising that his entire stimulus package will be published on the Internet.

Why is the minister still refusing to make public the studies that triggered the elimination of those programs, unless the studies' findings do not justify their actions?

[Arts and Culture, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, from Japan to Belgium, no less than 23 arts promoters from 17 countries have written to the Prime Minister, asking that his government reinstate assistance programs that allow Quebec and Canadian artists to tour abroad. The Prime Minister has not even bothered to acknowledge receipt of the letters.

Will the Prime Minister respond to the arguments of these international promoters who are confirming how effective those programs are and re-establish the funding for those programs?

[February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that he is proud of what his government has done for heritage, but I do not see how he can be proud when every artist in Quebec and Canada is in desperate straits. They are begging the government to help them carry on touring internationally.

It is true that the current government has some funding programs to help certain segments of the cultural sector travel abroad. However, there is a gaping hole when it comes to theatre, music and especially dance companies. They no longer have access to any funding programs to help them tour internationally. That is not right. It is just not right for the government to cut $45 million from those programs, then turn around and give $25 million to the Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity, a boondoggle meant to bring artists here.

[February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are having this adjournment debate this evening because on January 29, 2009, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages a question and his response was not just unsatisfactory; it was very disappointing.

The Conservative budget does not meet the needs of those in the cultural community, yet culture accounts for over 7% of the GDP. Even though artists have been able to demonstrate their past cost-effectiveness, programs to promote culture abroad have not been re-established, to the bitter disappointment of the arts community. Not only are they disappointed, but they are extremely worried about their future at this time.

In the performing arts alone, as a result of the Conservative government's cuts, we can expect 2,000 to be laid off or lose their jobs in a sector that is normally very successful with just a little help from the government. Thousands of tours will be cancelled and organizations will be forced to close.

In January, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages how he can explain the fact that this budget contains nothing for the promotion of culture abroad.

Nor is there anything to help artists, not one red cent in this budget that will go as direct help to creators, not one cent more for the Canada Council for the Arts.

We were all a bit surprised a few days ago when a spokesperson for the Conservative government told members of the media that the Conservatives “were not buddy-buddy with artists”.

A surprising statement, yes, but surprising mainly because of the frankness of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles in saying out loud what his colleagues were thinking quietly to themselves, with barely concealed disdain for our artists.

Yet the cultural industry in Quebec represents 314,000 jobs, 171,000 of those direct ones. In Montreal alone, the cultural industry in 2005 generated economic spinoffs of $1.4 billion, and was responsible for a growth rate of 4.7%. That is huge. The culture of Quebec is a kind of formidable business card distributed by such greats as Robert Lepage, Cirque du Soleil or La La La Human Steps.

Last fall, the Stephen Harper government stirred up a storm in Quebec when it announced $45 million in cuts to programs for artists touring abroad. Then, just a few days ago, the Conservatives were again in the spotlight, pulling out of their hat a new program, the Canada prize, with some $25 million in funding for foreign artists who will be performing in Toronto.

Members have repeatedly questioned the Conservative government about its approach to the cultural sector. We have learned that it made unjustified cuts to the touring program. Then the government announced $25 million in funding for a program known as the Canada Prizes, which nobody seems to know anything about. The government tried to distance itself from the project once it realized that it was a boondoggle.

The Conservatives are attacking artists, art and culture for purely ideological reasons. They will regret it because Quebeckers feel that culture is the very soul of our nation.

That is reason enough for Quebec to take control of its own cultural development. It is more important than ever before for the federal government to transfer all culture-related responsibilities and funding to the Government of Quebec. This is critical to our economic survival and to our survival as a people.

[Arts and Culture, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, eliminating the PromArt and Trade Routes assistance programs has really hurt artists who tour abroad. Had it not been for the support of an Italian producer, the La La La Human Steps dance company would not have been able to travel to Italy. Broadcasters abroad are very concerned that our artists may no longer be able to fulfill their commitments, because the Conservative government cut its funding.

Will the minister realize that artists have an urgent need for these programs, and will he restore funding?

[Arts and Culture, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Canadian Heritage is saying is that culture must serve politics and Canadian unity, and that his big project will unify the country. In fact, this is like the sponsorship scandal under the old Liberal government: anything to promote Canadian unity. It sounds like back to the future.

Will the minister admit that for the Conservatives, as was the case with the Liberals, arts and culture must serve Canadian unity?

[Arts and Culture, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said it is not true. But it is virtually an exact copy. I will read the Luminato wording in English:

These artists would be publicly adjudicated by a distinguished international panel of the best established artistic minds in each discipline.

That could not be more similar to the wording of the Conservative budget, which is as follows:

These artists will be publicly adjudicated by a distinguished panel of established artists in each discipline.

Will the minister admit that this is not just buddy-buddy with the lobbyists but an even more intimate, cut-and-paste relationship?

[Arts and Culture, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said the Conservatives are not buddy-buddy with artists.

It is obvious whom they are buddy-buddy with when we look at page 175 of the English version of the Conservative budget. The friendship between the government and the lobbyists for Luminato and the Canada Prize for the Arts and Creativity fairly leaps off the page. It is word for word.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages claim that this is not his project when the wording in the budget is virtually an exact copy of the Luminato text?