Guy André

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise here today to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.

The subject we are debating here today is very important for Quebec, because it denounces the federal government's determination, obsession even, to create a single securities commission, with the support of the Liberals in this House, despite the clear, unanimous opposition of the Quebec National Assembly. I mentioned the Liberals' support because if they do not vote, we only have to do the math to know that there are enough Conservatives to beat the Bloc and the NDP put together. By not voting, the Liberals are voting against the motion and letting the government do whatever it likes when it comes to securities.

The motion moved by the Bloc Québécois calls on the Conservatives and the Liberals to give up, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator. For some time now the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has wanted to concentrate all of Canada's financial administration activities in Toronto, even though this is a constitutional responsibility that belongs to Quebec. This falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, as clearly stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

For over 40 years, the idea of Canada having a single securities regulator has come up periodically. I do not understand why, in this time of recession and economic crisis, anyone would want to overhaul a system that works very well. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD have ranked our current securities market as the second best in the world. Why overhaul it? Does the government have nothing better to do in the next few weeks? The isotopes issue, for instance, could certainly be the focus of some debate and does warrant some attention.

Instead, this government is going against the members from Quebec and a unanimous motion in the Quebec National Assembly. All economic players agree: the securities commission falls under Quebec jurisdiction. We do not want to decentralize all our securities to Toronto, which would then have the power to run Quebec businesses. That is at cross purposes with our values as Quebeckers, as well as our financial and economic autonomy. In this time of recession, it is important to control all our economic levers and manage our own securities. That is crucial.

I am convinced that the objective of the federal government's position to meddle in a Quebec jurisdiction is also to limit once again the Quebec government's choices and abilities to take action as well as to weaken its economic power in order to annihilate it. However, Quebec is saying no. On two occasions, Quebec's National Assembly voted against the Conservative government's proposal. The Bloc Québécois will stand firm and ensure that this proposal is not adopted. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois is here. The Conservative and Liberal members representing Quebec will vote against the unanimous motions of Quebec's National Assembly, of the people they represent. That is shameful. Fortunately, the Bloc is here to defend Quebec. That is evident again today.

We should not forget that establishing a single regulator will jeopardize the survival of stock exchange activities in Montreal and foster an even greater concentration of the financial market in Toronto. Do the members from Quebec know what they are doing by voting with their government?

As I mentioned, the federal government's desire to establish a single regulator is nothing new. However, we have always managed to make the government back down on this proposal.

And yet, this desire was very clearly stated in the 2008 budget when the Minister of Finance again repeated that he was determined to introduce a bill to create a single regulator.

To attain this objective, the minister entrusted an expert panel with a very specific mandate. When work began on February 21, 2008, it was very disturbing that the Minister of Finance directed the panel to develop a model common securities act.

Clearly, by moving forward with a bill, the government has decided to go against the unanimous will of the National Assembly, which had unanimously denounced this federal initiative. We have a democracy in Quebec. Three parties were present. The Action démocratique du Québec is not the Parti Québécois. It does not have the same political objectives. The Liberals, who are federalists, are against the Conservative government's proposal for a pan-Canadian securities commission. Therefore, why go forward with it?

As expected, the expert panel recommended the creation of this commission. In addition, its report calls for a mechanism that would allow corporations to bypass laws adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec by authorizing them to work directly with the pan-Canadian organization.

In short, the report itself shows the desire of the Conservatives and the Liberals to impose this single commission, despite the legitimate objections of Quebec.

In response to the stubbornness of federal Conservative and Liberal members—the fact that the Liberals will not vote on this proposal is indicative of a position—the Quebec National Assembly once again restated its opposition on January 15, 2009, just before the 2009 federal budget was tabled, through a second unanimous motion that expressed its opposition to the federal government's approach.

However, when the Conservative government tabled the 2009 budged, in the middle of a crisis, it committed $150 million to implement this Canada-wide commission. We do not have money for the unemployed, we do not have money for the manufacturing or forestry industries, but we have money to invest in a jurisdiction that belongs to the provinces and to Quebec.

In conclusion, I am convinced that the federal government's desire to interfere in one of Quebec's jurisdictions is an attempt to once again limit the Government of Quebec's choices and ability to act. The Bloc Québécois is here to prevent that. We must not forget that the creation of a single regulator would threaten exchange activities. As I already said, the fact that the government wants to do this is nothing new. It is nothing new that a federal government, Liberal or Conservative, would want to centralize all of Canada's financial administration activities in Toronto, when this is one of Quebec's constitutional responsibilities.

For the Liberals and the Conservatives, this simply fulfils the common goal of handing over to the federal government all of the major economic powers, so that the central government has greater latitude to act. The Bloc is against this, and we will not let them do it. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is here to represent the interests of Quebeckers, because the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec will vote in favour of a proposal that goes against the very interests of Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her excellent speech on the topic of securities.

These days, the House is debating federal jurisdiction relative to the making of isotopes, employment insurance—we are calling for improvements to the program for Quebec—and health care.

The federal government only provides health care services to first nations people and it does not even do a good job of that. Yet, it is requesting new powers in the field of securities.

I believe that the federal government should at least manage its own areas of jurisdiction properly. Right now, it has enough to do without taking on a new area of jurisdiction in securities. In addition, Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously declared to the Government of Canada that it intended to continue managing its own securities industry.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment our NDP colleague on his good speech on this matter.

I would ask him to explain the position of the Liberals further. They did the same thing with EI. They were a long time in office, as we well know. They plundered $55 billion from the employment insurance fund, rejected any improvement to the employment insurance plan and now say that they want an election to improve the situation of workers, something we know they will not do.

As regards the securities commission, they voted in favour of our motion the last time. Now, at the dawn of an election campaign, they are hiding behind the idea of consulting the Supreme Court on this, when we know that it is under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I would like our colleague to explain this sham position of the Liberal Party further.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks by my colleague, who is in favour of establishing a Canada-wide securities commission. I would like to say to him first off that securities are under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. This is the first point that should be made.

In the context of the current economic crisis, Quebec needs all its instruments of economic development in order to deal with the crisis, which the current government in Ottawa often denies. This is another way the Conservatives have found to meddle in our jurisdictions.

My question is as follows. As we know, the Bloc has long opposed the creation of this national securities commission. The OECD and the World Bank consider the system currently in place the second most efficient in the world. I do not understand why this government is persisting in its desire to create or cast doubt on a system that works very well, that all Quebeckers and the National Assembly unanimously—

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, on his excellent speech on the securities issue.

People used to say that the Conservatives would form a more right-wing, decentralizing government, while the Liberals were more centralizing and inclined to social programs. We see today with these Conservative proposals, backed by the Liberals, that the government may be right-wing but it is just as centralizing as the Liberals when it comes to these kinds of measures.

I would like my colleague to explain as well the effect on the public service because this initiative bolsters the federal government and means that more public servants will be hired here in Ottawa to oversee securities, while Quebec as a whole will suffer job losses. I would like to hear my colleague on that.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I am not surprised that the Conservatives plan to vote in favour of the agreement. After all, they have already signed it. It is in line with their right-wing ideology, as we have seen in other trade agreements.

However, I am surprised that the Liberals will be voting for the agreement. They tabled Bill C-300 in the House, a bill to ensure that Canadian mining companies behave responsibly in terms of workers' rights and the environment. They also moved Motion M-283, with which I am sure my colleague is familiar, to implement the recommendations of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries advisory group.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. In his opinion, why did the Liberals vote in favour of those two measures if they are voting against—

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to our colleague, whom we very much appreciate in the House and who often speaks. However, I do not necessarily always agree with his positions.

I would like him to explain why the Liberal Party—which may form the government in future, because it aspires to power—voted in favour of Motion M-283?

This motion says that “the government should act immediately to implement the measures of the Advisory Group report “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries” by creating, in an appropriate legal framework and with the funds needed, an independent ombudsman office with the power to receive and investigate complaints”.

You are familiar with the motion, and you voted for it. This agreement contains no provision that has to do with any funds, even though the motion called for providing funds. Yet you will vote in favour of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru. I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague is also alluding to chapter 11 of NAFTA, which was reproduced in this agreement. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of multilateral rather than bilateral agreements. Under a multilateral agreement, companies must adhere more closely to these standards. There are things that could be done but that are not being talked about with regard to this agreement. We need a fair and equitable agreement that would require mining companies to report annually on their activities abroad and comply with the standards. An independent ombudsman office could be created to receive complaints about the activities of non-compliant Canadian companies abroad.

There is nothing in this agreement that talks about the recommendations we made. A tripartite committee could be formed to monitor compliance with the standards. This committee would be made up of representatives of government, civil society and the extractive industry. There are ways to mine in compliance with environmental standards. There are even mining techniques that create less pollution. But there is nothing about any of this in this agreement with Peru.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will not applaud those remarks, because I find them very naive. A study was conducted in Peru in 2004. The figures I have show that 97 disputes between communities and mining companies were reported. Some 60% of Canadian companies in Peru work in the mining sector. These disputes related to issues of access to lands and the destruction of the environment. In Colombia, thousands of people have been displaced because companies are taking away their lands and displacing populations in order to mine there.

We support free trade, but free trade that is fair and equitable, and that fosters sustainable development while respecting all local populations.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to this bill. As I have already indicated, the Bloc Québécois does not support this free trade agreement, basically because it does not meet a number of criteria and objectives that are necessary when concluding trade agreements that will create fairer, more equitable trade, rather than trade that fosters inequalities.

We believe that all new free trade agreements must contain clauses requiring that minimum standards concerning human rights, labour rights and respect for the environment be met. The free trade agreement with Peru, for example, would open many doors to Canadian investments in mining in Peru, but it does not include adequate provisions to protect workers and the environment.

There is no doubt that Canada is a leader in the mining sector. The federal government uses tax credits and financial and logistical aid to support companies operating abroad. The current federal government promotes Canadian companies' activities, but does not seem too concerned about whether any particular company complies with minimum human rights and environmental standards. The federal government, with support from the Liberals, of course, refused to adopt mandatory social responsibility standards for Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

It is ironic, if not downright pathetic, to see the Liberals oppose the adoption of mandatory standards even though they are in opposition. People say that when the Liberals are in opposition, they have a New Democratic agenda, but when they are in power, they have a Conservative agenda.

On the one hand, they support this agreement, but on the other, they introduced two legislative measures this session: Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood; and Motion M-283 on the social responsibility of the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries, by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. Despite supporting the agreements with Colombia and Peru, they have introduced motions to support and, as they put it, encourage companies to respect the environment and labour rights abroad. They introduce bills like that, then they turn around and vote in favour of agreements between Canada and Colombia or Canada and Peru. That is a major contradiction. I would like to expand on that.

Take Bill C-300, which the Liberals introduced in the House. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that Canadian mining companies behaved responsibly and complied with international human rights and environmental standards. The Liberals introduced that bill, but now they are voting for the Canada-Peru agreement and the Canada-Colombia agreement. Unbelievable. That is a basic contradiction. That is what I call political hypocrisy. It is unthinkable that a party could take such positions.

For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements—it happened in Colombia—significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations, as has occurred with many union members working in Colombia, for example. That is why Bill C-300 was introduced and that is why the Bloc will support the Liberals' bill.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies operating abroad. But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach.

I would like to point out that the Liberals have not taken a consistent position in this House. It is disgraceful for the Liberals to be voting in favour of this agreement. I would like the Liberal members to explain their logic because I have a great deal of difficulty understanding it.

They support the Conservatives and refuse to include mandatory standards in the agreement with Peru when there is clearly a need to adopt mandatory standards for the social responsibilities of Canadian mining companies. Now they are presenting these two legislative measures. It is a contradiction.

What can we say about the Liberals in this debate? I hope they will go and hide. Fortunately, stupidity and ridicule are not deadly; otherwise there would not be many Liberals left in this House. I would say they are being devious in this matter. I have been listening to them since yesterday and I am amazed.

As I was saying, rather than imposing mandatory standards, the government continues, on the contrary, to believe in the myth that Canadian companies act responsibly. It naively continues to defend the idea that a voluntary commitment is enough to guarantee that the activities of Canadian companies abroad will be conducted in a responsible manner.

It is important to remind the Conservative and Liberal members that the radical reforms imposed by the government of Alberto Fujimori between 1990 and 2000 reduced the size of the state and undermined its capacity to intervene effectively and to impose standards over its entire territory. We must not forget that.

Since then, yes there have been reinvestments, and Peru is currently in a phase of good economic growth. We must, however, consider Peru a developing country.

The Canadian government is responsible for ensuring that its legislation does not run counter to the needs of the populations concerned. Development must be sustainable, fair and equitable. It must be harmonious and respect local populations.

It is not enough just to say that our legislation creates jobs or stimulates local economies. This is why the Bloc Québécois has always favoured the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures with respect to the activities of mining companies in other countries.

This bill does not even reflect the recommendations by committees whose representatives had been to the field. The industry has studied the matter. By turning its back on the numerous recommendations by industry and civil society contained in the report by the advisory group to the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility, in which all parliamentarians took part and which dealt with the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries, the Canadian government has made itself complicit in the human rights abuses and environmental damages caused by the actions of certain offending companies. I cannot accept that.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is voting against these agreements. A trade system that results in the exploitation of developing countries is not viable.

Contrary to what the government may say, increasing exports through a free trade agreement between Canada and Peru will not automatically resolve the economic inequalities, social problems and poverty related to that country's development.

Including in the agreement a clause protecting investments, patterned on NAFTA's chapter 11, will allow businesses to sue the government. This clause will, I am sure, limit the Peruvian state's capacity to ensure equitable social and economic development for its population.

In this context, the free trade agreement with Peru contains some basic elements that prevent us from supporting this bill.