Daniel Paillé

[Securities, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, he said the complete opposite at a press conference, when he said that passports would not be accepted by the Canadian commission.

Ted Morton said that federal financial institutions tend to be very centralized. With insufficient resources and a lack of autonomy, they will be empty shells.

In Calgary and Montreal, the Minister of Finance's old dream will become our nightmare.

Why does the Conservative government want to deprive Quebec entrepreneurs of a regulator that understands their needs and can speak to them in French?

Why replace the AMF with an answering machine?

[Securities, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec and Alberta finance ministers have harshly criticized the plan for a national securities commission, the old dream of the Minister of Finance. According to them, the current passport system works very well. By eliminating this system, the government will create conflict between its Toronto commission and the existing authorities.

How can the government claim that Quebec and the other provinces are free to keep their regulators, when it is prohibiting—even abolishing—the passport system?

Why are they trying to tear this apart instead of making it better?

[Securities, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec and Alberta ministers reminded the federal minister that there is nothing to corroborate what he is saying when he maliciously exploits the victims of Earl Jones. If he really wants to protect investors, he should amend the Criminal Code and stop claiming that a federal commission could have prevented the Earl Jones fraud. Fighting fraud comes under federal jurisdiction.

This morning Raymond Bachand and Ted Morton basically told the minister to do his job and let them do theirs. When will the minister start doing his job?

[Securities, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has run out of ideas so it is offering $10,000 to anyone who can do its job and come up with ideas on how to save public money. I have a good idea to submit and this time I will do so free of charge. This will also prevent the Minister of Finance from trampling on Quebec's authority.

Why does the government not avoid wasting $350 million to create a federal securities commission, when the current system already works perfectly well, as pointed out this morning by the Quebec and Alberta finance ministers?

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, being very close to my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I know that he did not have time before to answer a question. I will give him the time to answer the question.

[Securities, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, all of these organizations are signing with the AMF and the Ontario Securities Commission.

Instead of this nonsense, why have serious people, like the governor of the Bank of Canada or the Associate Deputy Minister of Finance reiterated the urgency to improve—not destroy, but improve—the regulatory system?

Now is not the time to reinvent the wheel or the zipper.

Why is the Minister of Finance trying to take away our autonomy? Why make a big mess of something that works very well?

[Securities, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, following the lead of France and the United Arab Emirates, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission entered into an agreement with Quebec's AMF during the financial meetings that were held in Montreal.

These three authorities signed a comprehensive arrangement concerning the supervision of financial operations between the United States and Canada.

Given this international recognition of Canada's regulatory structure, why does the Minister of Finance not do likewise?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me speak to this issue again.

The member talks about respect for Quebec. But if they respect the people of Quebec and those who were swindled by Earl Jones, I want to remind them that they are responsible for going after criminals. Prosecuting criminals comes under their jurisdiction. Earl Jones was not registered and would not have been registered with a Canadian securities commission either.

A member said that the Royal Bank comes under federal jurisdiction, yet the federal government has done nothing about this since 2003. Mr. Coffee's study was also mentioned. Has the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup read Mr. Coffee's PowerPoint presentation? Mr. Lortie, the former president of the Montreal stock exchange and Bombardier Transport, tore apart Mr. Coffee's study. I hope the member will have the chance to read it and—

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, for a former printer, a missing character makes a bad impression. I hope he will get over it. He will need to when he returns to his trade after the next election.

He did manage, though, to read his text reasonably well. I would like to point out to him that he admitted that Canada came to the help of the banks, something the government has always refused to say. He also mentioned EDC and said that Canada had set up insurance facilities and loan guarantees. So it was part of the system.

He said we have to reduce barriers. But there are no barriers now. The passport system means there are no longer any barriers. Fifteen years ago, there were 13 different commissions and 13 sets of rules and regulations, but that is no longer the case. He said very clearly that his government would not respect Quebec passports. It is the government, therefore, that is erecting barriers.

When he goes back to his business and wants to issue securities, he will need to have his passport in Quebec but will not be able to go abroad, to Canada, to find financing, whereas he can now.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. There are different kinds of members in the House. Some are career MPs, while others come here after a brilliant career. I have to say, in all seriousness, that our colleague has had an admirable international career in the space program.

However, in his speech, he did say a number of things that were not true, such as when he said it was more expensive and more problematic. Clearly, the financial system is not his area of expertise, but he went on to answer questions. It was a fairly balanced speech.

I have just one question for him, and it has to do with his career and mine. What would he have said if, when humankind began to conquer space, the Americans had told Canada that because there was so much at stake, they were going to control everything. I am sure he would have stood up for the Canadian Space Agency as a Canadian institution and made a case for its competence. I am making a case for our competence just as he would have done for the agency.