Diane Bourgeois

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate we are having today, there is one aspect of the subject we have not necessarily talked about. Transferring a securities commission from Quebec to Ontario would mean a lot of things. First, it means capital being transferred to Ontario and not staying in Quebec. It means job losses. It also means that our Quebec businesses would lose the ability to deal directly with the Montreal Exchange.

I would like my colleague, if possible, to take a minute or two to elaborate on that subject a little more.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP is absolutely right. We will recall that every time this Conservative government has done something to standardize some program or other, it has always been a flop.

The best example is the Summer Career Placements initiative. The intention was to standardize this program across Canada, and funds could not be granted based on local needs. It is exactly the same thing when it comes to the securities regulator. I would add to what my colleague said that there is a kind of passport, agreements between the provinces that allow them to provide mutual assistance so there is some justice between them.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by the member, who, by the way, is the Bloc critic for finance.

That allows me to say that there are people in Quebec, at least among those who are in favour of seeing Quebec move forward on the world stage, who are perfectly conscious that there is a federalist plot aiming at depriving Quebec of the only voice it has left. I consider indeed that Quebec has no other voice on the world stage.

Quebec has apparently been given a seat at UNESCO, but it is an uncomfortable seat since Quebec can only speak if Canada agrees with what it has to say.

Right now, Canada is building itself. To do that, it must concentrate all powers in the provinces that are not Quebec. All financial powers are being concentrated in Ontario, in Toronto and on Bay Street.

The government did exactly the same thing with the automobile industry. But in Quebec, we have been spared. In fact, the auto industry in Ontario is now facing major problems. We must remember that, in the past, the auto industry in Quebec never received any subsidies.

The same is not true for everybody. I suspect—

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Québec. We are here today to debate the following motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois:

That, in the opinion of the House, securities regulation falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that, therefore, the federal government should reject, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator for all of Canada, thereby respecting the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec.

This is not the first time we have discussed the subject of a single securities regulator in the House, as proposed by the Government of Canada. We have been discussing the subject for more than 40 years. During that period, Canada has been trying to create a single set of regulations and a single securities commission. We know very well that the Conservative government is taking the offensive by trying to establish it now. But in 2003 the Liberals were already thinking about it. They put together a panel of experts to study the idea of a single securities regulator in Canada. So, to begin with, it is a Conservative wish and also a Liberal wish. It is extremely important not to forget this element in the debate today.

Ontario never had its own securities regulatory system. It was always the only province that did not have one, while all the other Canadian provinces had provincial securities regulations. So, in 2005, the Ontario government commissioned a panel of experts to look at the benefits of a single securities system. Of course, the report presented by this panel supported Ontario's arguments in favour of a single securities commission.

The 2006 federal budget revisited the idea. The then Minister of Finance announced that the government would work with the provinces and territories to set up a common securities regulator. He reaffirmed that position in November 2006, in his economic update, and also in the 2007 budget. Following a meeting of ministers responsible for securities, the Minister of Finance announced plans to set up a working group which, in 2007, would review the benefits of a single Canadian securities regulator in global capital markets.

However, in September 2007, the panel's mandate was changed so that it would focus on how to set up a single regulatory agency, instead of looking at how effective the current system is. In a sense, we were had. The Conservatives changed the panel's mandate. They quietly did their thing and opened doors. We watched them while believing in this government, in justice and in the government's integrity.

On February 21, 2008, the Minister of Finance confirmed his intention to change the panel's mandate so that it would focus on drafting model legislation to create a single securities commission. The 2008 budget confirmed the Conservative government's intention to set up a single securities commission.

Meanwhile, the Quebec National Assembly, including all its members and ministers, unanimously condemned this federal government initiative and passed a motion to that effect, which read as follows:

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

I should point out that, under the Constitution of 1867, provinces have authority over securities. If the current government decides to set up a single securities commission, it is quite simply interfering with the Constitution. It is violating it and changing it for its own benefit.

The Conservative government ignored the motion unanimously passed by the Quebec National Assembly, and, in his November 2008 economic and financial update, the federal Minister of Finance reiterated his intention to establish a single securities commission.

Following that, in January 2009, the National Assembly passed a second motion asking the federal government to give up the idea of establishing a single securities commission. The National Assembly's motion read as follows:

That the National Assembly reiterate its firm opposition to the Canada-wide securities commission project.

Finally, the minister, always under the radar, earmarked $150 million to implement his national commission project, despite the Constitution and the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

The 2009 budget implementation bill, introduced by the Conservatives and supported—I hasten to add—by the Liberals, releases the funding needed to implement this single regulator.

So that everyone knows what we are talking about, securities are negotiable instruments. They can be listed on the stock exchange. They are two main categories: stocks and bonds. There are some others as well, such as investment certificates and share purchase warrants. Securities trading in Quebec is currently regulated by Quebec itself. The other provinces regulate their own trading. In Quebec, the securities business is regulated by the Autorité des marchés financiers. Quebec and the other provinces have to deal with one another. Stocks and bonds are traded through a passport system.

The parliamentary secretary told us a little while ago that this system does not work, but that is not true, it works very well. The World Bank and the OECD have even congratulated us on it. So there is the Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec which enforces the rules governing the way companies issue shares or bonds.

Earlier, I heard an hon. member, who is probably not very familiar with the subject, ask a question about commercial paper. If we had had a national securities regulator, she wondered, would we have been able to stop the commercial paper fiasco. No, because it happened in the United States or elsewhere in the world and then here. A single securities commission in Canada would not have been able to prevent it.

I want to say as well that the Autorité des marchés financiers has a voice on the international scene. That must be protected as well. Quebec can negotiate with other countries on the international level. If a single securities commission is established, not only will Quebec no longer be able to manage its money in the way it wants, but the federal government will also interfere in an area of Quebec jurisdiction and silence its voice on the international scene.

The Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec are going to have to think long and hard about that. They are clipping Quebec’s wings. Is that really what they want? It is plain as day.

I think they just want to put Quebec down. They do not want it to have a voice any more on the international stage.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Macleod gave some information which, in my view, is not quite accurate. He was saying earlier today that we have a solid financial services sector here in Canada and that a single securities commission would give, according to him, better access to financial services.

On the other hand, he then said that the present Canadian securities system was inefficient, that provincial mandates were a patchwork and that the system did not work well. He contradicted himself in his speech.

What does he have to say to the World Bank and to the OECD, which said recently that the Canadian system works very well as it is, that it is efficient and effective and that it gives good results?

[Medical Isotopes, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Natural Resources has no solution to the shortage of medical isotopes. The only solution she has come up with is to set up an expert panel.

Unfortunately, we still have no details about this panel, and we do not even know whether the members have been named, which is terrible.

Is this government so lacking in leadership? Is it unable to deal with the current situation?

[Hunger Awareness Day, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, June 2 is National Hunger Awareness Day. As the unfortunate result of the global economic crisis and the Conservative government's poor handling of it, Quebec's and Canada's food banks are no longer able to keep up with the requests for help from people who are becoming poorer and poorer.

The Bloc Québécois wants to pay tribute to the staff and volunteers of community organizations such as the food banks. We know how much they are involved in providing front line services to those affected by the recession.

In order to support them in their undertakings, in our second recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois is calling upon the government to place $300 million in trust to enable Quebec, among other things, to help the innocent victims of this financial crisis. In these difficult times, we must ensure the survival of those who are bearing the brunt of financial practices that are disconnected from reality. In the spirit of justice, we must share the wealth and support communities as they mobilize their efforts in order to meet people's basic need to have enough to eat.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru. I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill and this agreement because we have no guarantee that the agreement is worded strongly enough and contains a framework to protect the environment and human rights in Peru.

The third point I want to make is that this free trade agreement with Peru contains a similar clause to chapter 11 of NAFTA. This chapter, which relates to investments, allows investors from member states in the North American Free Trade Zone to claim compensation from the government of another party to NAFTA when they believe they have incurred a loss as a result of the adoption of regulatory measures that modify existing business operating conditions. What does that mean? It means that if, for example, a country decides to introduce legislation that would force a company doing business in that country to adopt other procedures that might seem harmful to the business, it could sue the government of that country.

NAFTA is the only major free trade agreement to which Canada is a party that contains such broad provisions regarding the treatment to be granted to investors from other parties. The provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA governing investments have been called into question. They are the source of numerous proceedings that have been brought against various governments in Mexico, the United States and Canada. They sometimes result in several million dollars in compensation being awarded.

I said earlier that chapter 11 defines a complete scheme to govern investments and that the definition of investments is very broad. That is why the provisions of this chapter have given rise to many lawsuits pertaining to the concept of expropriation.

In a way, the NAFTA provisions laid the groundwork. They are similar to the provisions in the proposed Canada-Peru free trade agreement, which will give companies a great deal of power. Ultimately, we are concerned about the sovereignty of governments and their ability to take measures to protect the health of people and the quality of the environment. Will it be possible for Peru to protect people's health and the quality of their environment? We doubt it.

The Bloc Québécois is well aware of the need for free trade. We support investment protection agreements, but we are not prepared to accept bad agreements at any cost, and we feel that this agreement is a bad one.

Foreign direct investment is soaring.

Every now and then, a Canadian company decides to settle abroad, where the government may decide to nationalize it. In order to create a predictable environment, to ensure that a foreign investor will not lose his nationalized business without compensation, and to give some assurances to companies, states sign treaties to protect investments. We think this is perfectly normal, and we accept that such provisions be included in these treaties.

However, over the past few years, we have seen such an incredible shift, because of NAFTA's chapter 11, that we are now wondering. We are very cautious with processes, chapters and clauses that may look like the provisions in NAFTA's chapter 11.

Under that chapter, foreign investors are allowed to go before international tribunals and challenge the expropriation, which may reduce their profits and result in a court action. If investors can prove that they are losing money because of a new act, or a new way of doing things by the government of the host country, they can get compensation by going before the courts. The important thing here is that the amount of the suit is not limited to the value of the investment, but includes all possible future profits. In other words, these investors can literally ruin a government, and that is totally abusive.

This chapter has been condemned time and again by many countries, by various organizations, and by the Bloc Québécois. Still, Ottawa continues to sign bilateral agreements that are patterned on this infamous chapter 11 in NAFTA. The government is on the offensive again and is negotiating numerous such agreements. We believe that the Conservative government is headed in the wrong direction and should instead take better care of the public good and of human rights.

A few years ago, the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries took place. Many Canadian mining companies are responsible and respectful, but quite a few, many of which I could name, are not. While negotiations for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement were underway, it was clear that plenty of Canadian mining companies could not have cared less about aboriginal rights, environmental rights or human rights. They set up operations in various countries, take advantage of conditions there, such as military juntas and corrupt governments, and exploit those countries for profit.

We also have to consider human rights in Peru. Peru is one of Canada's smaller trading partners, and the mining sector is the primary trade driver. We know that Peru has a pretty poor track record when it comes to protecting workers in that industry.

Earlier, I mentioned the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries.

The national roundtables reported on what was going on. We all know the Canadian mining companies. We know their names. We know that a book has been written about their activities. They did everything in their power to get the book off the market; they even sued the authors in the hope that their activities would not be made known to the general public.

Canadian mining companies are the biggest foreign investors. Canada does not have any rules about what responsible companies should do, so they do as they please. We know that. We want to know what will happen if we have a bilateral agreement that does not impose any restrictions whatsoever on mining companies, an agreement that allows them to do whatever they like in countries like Peru, which do not have the means or even the ability to set rules and standards. Given the context, we cannot accept a country-to-country agreement with no guarantees.

One of the main reasons Canadian investors are attracted to Peru is the country's natural resources, particularly its mining resources. Canadian investment in Peru's mining sector is $5 billion, give or take. More than 80 Canadian mining companies are doing mining exploration in Peru. Canada leads investment in mining exploration and exploitation in Peru.

It was asked earlier why Canada is concluding a free trade agreement with Peru. It is very clear. It is to protect Canadian mining companies. It is not simply to do the right thing or for philanthropic reasons. It is to cover its own behind, to protect its own interests. We have nothing against that. However, the framework is too general. The free trade agreement with Peru gives greater protection to Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector. However, our fear is that the investment protection measures provide disproportionate protection to investors at the expense of local populations and the environment.

How many times have we watched as Canadian mining companies have displaced local populations, preventing them from reuniting, and polluted rivers? In Colombia in particular, rivers have run pink.

We know that Peru can protect itself, but it is still considered a developing country. It does not have the ability at this time. Also, not protecting workers' rights is standard practice in certain countries. The workers are small fry. They are considered worthless. Child labour often exists in these kinds of countries.

The Bloc Québécois would like to see mandatory standards and accountability measures imposed on the activities of mining companies working abroad. We would have liked to see the formation of a committee to advise the federal government, just as the national roundtables advisory group recommended. The minister at the time, the current international trade minister, practically refused and stonewalled.

It was recommended that a multiparty committee be formed, made up of representatives from the mining industry, to advise the federal government. I say “advise” because this government continues to do whatever it likes, no matter what anyone says, no matter what Canadians say. It stubbornly pursues its agenda without thinking about the fact that some people might be able to suggest a more acceptable approach. These people were calling for mandatory standards.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Davenport, with whom I have worked on various committees. He generally knows his files very thoroughly.

He said right at the beginning of his speech that we should not be reluctant to liberalize trade and that trade was essential for Canada. We all certainly know that. The question we need to ask, though, is at what price. What if the price is the uprooting of people? Should we just close our eyes to what is going on in Colombia, things that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International decry as infringements on human rights? Should we just close our eyes despite what several organizations came and told us at the round tables we held on the issue of Canadian mines, for example, and what they do in foreign countries?

We should not forget that Colombia is one of Canada’s smallest trading partners. Our trade is hardly comparable. For example, Canada’s grain exports could have the effect of swamping all of Colombia’s small producers.

Our colleague stated some facts and explained a situation, but I did not really understand what his position is. Can he tell us? Is he for this agreement or against it?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that my hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île made an extremely interesting presentation. She brought up new points that we had not heard so far concerning human rights in Colombia. She has a great deal of experience with free trade, human rights and the various countries involved.

Instead of putting us in front of a fait accompli and a free trade agreement already signed by both countries, would it not have been better if the government had first asked the members of this House for their opinions? It could have made an effort to find out what impact this agreement would have on human rights and inform the members of this House of the real reasons why it was signed.