James Rajotte

[Crown Corporations, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as Canada continues to cope with the effects of the global economic recession, it remains essential for the federal government and for federal agencies to spend tax dollars wisely.

Today, the President of the Treasury Board took further actions to protect taxpayer dollars that have been invested in crown corporations.

Would the President of the Treasury Board update the House on the new measures that have been taken to help ensure that federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars in a responsible fashion?

[Committees of the House, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand the logic of the member for Markham—Unionville. He is changing a position that he took as recently as January 28 in the House of Commons. He is changing a position that the member for Wascana, the former finance minister for that party, took when he was in government. He said:

I don't believe that the passport system is an adequate response. It still leaves us with a system that is largely fragmented and certainly less sophisticated than that in virtually every other country in the world...I don't think we can wait forever on this kind of topic because healthy, strong, vibrant capital markets are critical to a successful economy.

Why has the Liberal Party changed its position on the need for a national securities regulator? Why are the Liberals abstaining on this vote in the House of Commons?

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to recognize that this crisis is not local; the crisis is global. As Don Drummond, the TD economist, has said, this is the most synchronized global recession in history.

We have to have not only national responses but international responses. We have to work in concert with our G7 and G20 partners.

Earlier the Bloc member quoted from the 2007 report of the IMF. There is a May 2009 report on Canada, and this is their conclusion about our current system:

[T]he current passport system of 13 provincial and territorial securities supervisors risks regulatory arbitrage and creates gaps in oversight, given that securities markets are effectively national in scope. A federal regulator could coordinate more readily with other regulators in monitoring risks and responding quickly to a crisis, and could also have an enhanced focus on the issues that securities markets may pose for national financial stability.

I would encourage members to read this report, take it to heart, oppose this motion, and support a national securities regulator.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his very thoughtful questions. In terms of making this attractive to Quebec, obviously we recognize that there are some challenges there.

One thing is the system being voluntary, as is proposed. I think that would be an advantage in terms of attracting Quebec to it. As he mentioned, there is an international aspect. Quebeckers endorsed the free trade agreement very strongly back when it was proposed in the 1980s. They endorsed NAFTA very strongly. They are very much a people who trade, not only with other provinces but across international borders.

That is one of the points that was very much emphasized to us in Washington, that if we want to have a continuing trade not only of goods and services but of financial services, we need to have a national securities regulator that can sit down with other national regulators and hammer out some of the details, especially at a time when our financial system is in a position of strength relative to other nations. When Canadian companies are looking at doing more acquisitions, particularly in the United States, this would enhance them. Some of those would obviously be based and headquartered in Quebec, but those companies themselves are calling for it.

I think that is another way to perhaps put some pressure on those people in Quebec at the political level, basically saying we need enhanced international cooperation as well.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very hard-working member of Parliament for Burlington.

I am pleased to join in the debate on the merits of improving securities regulation in Canada. Canada is the only major industrialized country without a common or a national securities regulator. The ongoing market turmoil has clearly highlighted the need for improved securities regulation. Our government agrees and strongly believes that we need to take steps to strengthen Canada's securities regulatory framework to better protect investors, enhance enforcement, strengthen our response to financial instability, reduce unnecessary costs, and attract new international investment. That is why we have committed, as part of our economic action plan, to implement the central recommendations of the Hockin expert panel and establish a single securities regulator, a regulator that would respect constitutional jurisdiction and regional interests.

There is one aspect I would like to emphasize in my remarks today, and that is how a national securities regulator would benefit Canadians in an increasingly global marketplace.

We have a lot to be proud of when it comes to our financial system. It is considered the world's soundest according to the World Economic Forum, and a model of stability during the global crisis. As World Bank president Robert Zoellick noted last week, “I think a lot of people would like to change places with Canada”.

In one crucial aspect we fall short, and that deficiency strikes at the heart of the motion. We are the only industrialized country without a common securities regulator. Our system of 13 regulators is cumbersome, disjointed and it lacks the proper tools for enforcement. That has been noted by many others. It has been noted by the IMF. I would encourage colleagues to read the IMF report of 2009 that bluntly stated, “Canada is currently the only G7 country without a common securities regulator,and Canada's investors deserve better”.

It was noted by the OECD that the “presence of multiple regulators has resulted in inadequate enforcement and inconsistent investor protection”. The OECD noted that it also makes it harder for Canada “to respond to changes in the global marketplace or to rapidly innovate”. The global economic downturn and the havoc it has wrought underlines that the need for a single regulator is more urgent than ever. Co-ordinated regulation across the Canadian securities markets and a single international voice for Canada in the global coordination of securities regulation and crisis management are necessities, not options.

This is what the finance committee heard on its recent visit to Washington.

The Hockin expert panel on securities regulation, which proposed the creation of a national securities commission, made that point very convincingly. I would like to thank all who served on that panel for their excellent work.

For example, when it comes to Canada's fragmented securities regulation system, whom do our global partners turn to? Where is their single entry point? To whom is their one phone call made?

At a time when we need to have a strong single voice to contribute to solving global financial problems, or present Canada at international meetings, this is one area where we simply must do better. We need a single voice able to work more effectively with other countries in addressing the pressing global regulatory issues, issues ranging from oversight of international accounting and auditing standards, credit rating agencies and derivatives. These points were all made in the Hockin report.

As Professor Michael Code of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law noted when trying to rapidly address emerging problems in the current financial crisis:

We're short one player. What are they supposed to do, invite 13 securities regulators to sit down with them? If there was a time when the need for a national securities regulator cries out, it's now.

As respected Montreal Gazette columnist Peter Hadekel has remarked:

We need a national agency, powerful and accountable, not only to police financial markets at home but to work with regulators around the world.

A single regulator would also provide benefits on the enforcement side not only in better protecting Canadian and foreign investors in our markets, but in boosting our reputation in the eyes of the world.

Yet criminal enforcement is hampered by the same fragmented structure undermining securities regulation. Each province has varying degrees of investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative expertise and resources to handle criminal matters. That is no recipe for improving Canada's ability to have a strong system of securities enforcement.

I note that members from Quebec will say that enforcement in Quebec is very strong, but that means we can have a common securities regulator that would have strong enforcement across the country. It does not mean that a single securities regulator would in any way be weaker than the current enforcement that happens in the province of Quebec.

As an aside, I have to note that the Hockin report recognized the expertise that we have in this country in some of the provinces and encouraged the federal government to make use of this expertise in various areas in moving forward with the one national securities regulator.

In the words of a recent editorial in The Globe and Mail:

Canada is alone among major economic powers in suffering from a balkanized regulation of the issuance and trading of stocks, bonds and other securities. There are now 13 Canadian securities commissions, with a corresponding multiplicity of statutes, regulations, policies and interpretations....

Around the world, in response to the financial crisis, much work is being done toward international co-ordination of regulation.

Too little of this is going on in Canada, where the struggle is still to form a national marketplace. Canadian policy-makers must catch up.

As the Hockin report noted, the consolidation of enforcement activities from 13 commissions into one would concentrate resources, eliminate unnecessary duplication and overlap, and support greater consistency in investor protection across Canada.

A national regulator would better align valuable enforcement resources, which would lead to improve co-operation with federal and international criminal enforcement agencies.

A single streamlined regulatory approach would also make Canada's capital markets more attractive to foreign issuers and investors.

Consider the learned views of those who rely on strong and effective capital markets for their success. Consider a great Canadian company headquartered in western Canada, Telus, which made some recent investments, in the last six months, of which we are very proud. It said that Canada's fragmented approach:

--will continue to erode investor confidence and discourage investment by Canadian and international investors.

Or we could also consider the Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada, which noted that a national regulator:

--will improve regulatory efficiency and cut compliance costs, provide protection to investors, improve internal trade, and improve confidence in and accountability of our regulatory system.... [S]trengthening securities regulation in Canada will help to create an environment conducive to investment.

Our financial system is presently the envy of the world. It has performed head and shoulders above the rest during the current global recession. However, it is not perfect, and the distinction of being the only industrialized country with such a disorderly approach to securities regulation is holding us back. That is why our government has made clear its intention to move quickly with willing provinces to establish a transition office. That is why we intend to have a Canadian securities regulator to help monitor for future threats and protect Canada's financial system, something that this Bloc motion fails to acknowledge.

Before concluding, let me quote a recent Calgary Herald editorial that provides a succinct summary of a case for improved securities regulation:

There's a reason why every developed country...has a single securities regulator. It's because they work. Capital can be raised more efficiently, making it cheaper for the consumer to invest, and affords investors better protection.

Canada stands alone in its system, and that hurts the country's ability to have a voice on a global platform.

I encourage all colleagues in this House to oppose this motion and to support the establishment of a common securities regulator.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague quite profoundly on this, but I do respect his work on the finance committee. He was with the committee in Washington where a number of people said to us that we ought to adopt a common securities regulator. The International Monetary Fund has the same opinion. I want to quote from its excellent report on Canada, where it noted:

[T]he current passport system of 13 provincial and territorial securities supervisors risks regulatory arbitrage and creates gaps in oversight, given that securities markets are effectively national in scope. A federal regulator could coordinate more readily with other regulators in monitoring risks and responding quickly to a crisis, and could also have an enhanced focus on the issues that securities markets may pose for national financial stability.

The Hockin report also talked about what we heard in Washington, which is that the streamlined regulatory approach to a common securities regulator would make Canada's capital markets more attractive to foreign issuers and investors.

I would like the member to respond to the IMF argument and to the Hockin report about making us as a nation more attractive to foreign investment.

[Terrorism, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women are fighting in places like Afghanistan in an effort to rid that country of hate and oppression. Tragically, the terrorist attacks in Pakistan last week reminded us that hate still exists in many places.

While some of this hate is the act of individuals, other times it is organized and even sponsored or supported by nation states, states that have all too often hidden behind diplomatic immunity to sponsor and fund these acts of violence and terror.

What is our government prepared to do to ensure that victims of terror are able to seek justice and redress from those organizations and states that use terrorism as a weapon in the war against democracy and freedom?

[Parliamentarian of the Year, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we gathered for Maclean's annual Parliamentarians of the Year awards.

Winners and runners-up were drawn from all parties and I congratulate all of them. However, the most coveted prize, Parliamentarian of the Year, was awarded to a Conservative, the member for Calgary Southeast, our own Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Since being elected in 1997, the minister has devoted his energies and his passion to advancing Canada's role as a champion of human dignity, human rights, equality of opportunity and the rule of law. He has also promoted Parliament as a forum for a clash of values and ideas about how the country should be governed. He has also shown throughout his career that no matter what their party allegiances, parliamentarians can disagree without being disagreeable.

The minister is well known for his work ethic, his love of debate and of politics for its own sake, his sense of humour, his laugh that can be heard throughout this chamber, as well as his belief that friendships can and must cross party lines.

I congratulate the minister on this achievement.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present petitions on behalf of the United for Peace petition. Thirteen hundred Canadians have signed this. I believe all four political parties have presented petitions on this in the House.

The petition deals with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian and Philippine conflicts and addressing the root causes of conflict in Colombia.