House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
Veterans Affairs September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether his plan would be retroactive to 2006 or whether it would leave behind our veterans who were injured in the last four years.
The minister wriggled around the question. Our veterans deserve better than that. After all, they have risked their lives for Canada.
Yes or no, will the plan be retroactive to 2006 or will it exclude the veterans who have returned from the battlefields in the last four years?
Veterans Affairs September 21st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not want to renew Pat Stogran's mandate because he was passionate about defending veterans' interests.
Yet our soldiers who return with injured bodies and minds have made the greatest sacrifice a country can ask of its citizens. We owe them the utmost respect. Lip service is not enough.
Did the government really get the message? What will it do about lump sum payments that do not meet people's needs?
Veterans Affairs September 21st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, it took a very persistent veterans ombudsman to show the government that it was not practising what it preached, despite wrapping itself in a cloak of virtue about our men and women of the armed forces.
I am a proud ex-naval officer, and I know that actions speak louder than words. I have a very simple question. Will the government make its new policy retroactive to 2006 so that it will not leave behind the wounded veterans of the last four years?
NDP Deputy Leader June 15th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the deputy leader of the NDP concerning the state of Israel are not only irresponsible and counterproductive, but they are unworthy of Canada's foreign policy.
While acting as a moderator in the region, Canada has always defended Israel's right to exist.
The comments of the NDP's deputy leader, on the other hand, qualify as gratuitous rhetoric that reveals intolerable ignorance of Israel's history. When she questioned Israel's right to exist, her remarks went beyond the realm of what is acceptable.
If the leader of the NDP does not demand the deputy leader's resignation, then he is indeed condoning her remarks.
Canadian politicians can give neither authority nor publicity to this kind of anti-Israel rhetoric, and the leader of the NDP knows it.
Canadian politicians cannot repeat this kind of rhetoric, nor give it any platform. The NDP leader knows this and should ask his deputy leader to step down.
Aerospace Industry June 14th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, on May 27 the Minister of National Defence told the committee of the whole, “the reference to the next generation of fighter aircraft does not preclude a competition, and an open and transparent one”. Was the minister misleading the House?
Does the minister intend to follow well-established procedures, or has he already chosen his $16 billion aircraft without tender, without competition? How will this ensure that we get the best deal for Canada, the best aircraft, as well as the greatest benefits for the aerospace industry?
Aerospace Industry June 14th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our fighter planes need to be replaced and we know that several companies have expressed an interest in landing this major contract. There is a well established process for this kind of procurement and it begins with a tendering process. But this government cannot seem to follow procedures. It could cost up to $16 billion.
How can we be sure that we get the best aircraft for the best price, and the best spinoffs for our aerospace industry, if the government refuses to call for tenders?
Business of Supply June 10th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona has illustrated that this is an extremely complex matter and certain provinces, and he points out Alberta, have very clearly indicated they do not favour one national securities regulator. Quebec has made that quite clear. I believe Manitoba has also expressed similar reservations.
Given the fact that this matter has been referred to the Supreme Court, it seems to me that at this point we should allow provinces to continue to express themselves and we should wait for the Supreme Court. There is a healthy debate going on and we will find out, in due course, when the Supreme Court pronounces itself. Then we will have a solid basis on which to continue and make a decision.
Business of Supply June 10th, 2010
I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for that lovely compliment. I believe he is in the same category as me. He has come to federal politics somewhat late, after distinguishing himself in his previous career.
I presented both sides of the coin without giving my personal opinion. Those are the arguments made by the people who want a single commission and those who think it is better to keep the provincial commissions. I wanted to present the arguments openly, and that is what I did. I hope he got the main point I was trying to make, which was that the Supreme Court will examine the Constitution and issue an opinion. We should wait for the result of the Supreme Court review before moving motions like the one put forward today.
Business of Supply June 10th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Charlottetown.
Out of respect, I will start by reading the motion introduced by the hon. member from the Bloc:
That this House denounce the government’s unrelenting efforts to marginalize the Quebec nation, in particular by depriving it of the major economic lever of securities regulation, a matter that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and for which they have established a harmonized regulatory system recognized for its effectiveness by the OECD and the World Bank, among others, and that it demand, along with Quebec’s National Assembly and the business community in Quebec, that the government immediately withdraw its draft bill.
Since the constitutionality of a national securities commission has, as we know, been referred to the Supreme Court, I do not see the relevance of this motion, which appears to me to be a semantic exercise only. However, to put it all in context, let me give you an overview of the general situation.
First, let us remember that securities legislation in Canada and throughout the world has two main objectives: to protect investors and to ensure that financial markets are efficient, fair and transparent.
In general, the agencies that regulate securities oversee four important areas:
First, capital leveraging through the sale of securities such as private offerings and primary distributions.
Second, corporate transparency and the continual disclosure of relevant information to investors.
Third, enforcement of the securities regulations and prevention of deceptive or fraudulent behaviour.
Fourth, the qualifications of securities traders and their good reputation and accreditation.
As for the provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec are currently opposed to a single securities regulator. Ontario, on the other hand, is in favour. British Columbia has made it known that it would be part of such a program only if provincial jurisdiction were respected. In October 2007, as we know, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asking the government to drop its plans for a national securities regulation commission.
One of the arguments made by the provinces is that securities are a provincial responsibility under section 92(13) of the Constitution on “property and civil rights”, and that the federal government should not interfere.
Under the current regulations, securities in Canada are subject to directives from 13 provincial and territorial authorities.
In order to make a balanced presentation, I must set out the arguments on both sides of the issue.
These are the main arguments against the current system.
It is very expensive for corporations that want to attract capital to comply with all the provinces' regulations. Time is an important factor in leveraging capital, and compliance with multiple provincial regulatory schemes delays the start of negotiations.
Investors in the less populous provinces may be denied access to certain investments. Because of differences and disparities in the existing regulations, it is sometimes difficult to ensure they are enforced. More resources would have to be devoted to this.
In support of the present “multijurisdictional” model, the provinces make the following arguments:
First, it allows innovative ideas to be developed that can be adapted and be more responsive to the specific features of regional markets. Second, regulations can be more effectively administered, as the agencies with that authority acquire experience and knowledge in their regional markets.
Third, a common regulatory agency might impose compliance rules that were designed for larger multinational users and might exclude the small regional businesses, which would not be good, and thus cut them off from financing.
Fourth, the multijurisdictional model protects regional securities infrastructure that the provinces and territories have created with accountants, notaries, underwriters and other professionals.
In response to the criticism, all the provinces and territories, with the exception of Ontario, formed the Canadian Securities Administrators, a forum that allows the various securities regulators to coordinate and harmonize the regulation system in Canada.
The Canadian Securities Administrators have developed a number of initiatives, including a passport system allowing for a single wicket and the ability to participate in all the regional capital markets.
On March 17, 2008, the securities passport system introduced the next stage, as a result of which any prospectus approved in one province would be recognized in all the other provinces, except Ontario. The Canadian Securities Administrators also introduced a harmonized electronic data system for analysis and research to make information available, called SEDAR, and a simplified national registration system for securities traders.
Once again, since we do not expect a decision to be made for another 18 or 24 months, the Bloc is trying to score political points with this motion today. We completely agree with the Bloc that the existing expertise in the different regions of Canada, particularly in Quebec and Montreal, should not be sacrificed or displaced in order to create a single commission. The Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec has a very good reputation and is recognized around the world.
Furthermore, the Conservative government's divisive approach is completely unacceptable. This is another example of the Prime Minister's poor track record on provincial-federal relations.
However, since we are still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on this issue, and since the issue will not likely budge for another year and a half, the Bloc's motion is completely useless.
One thing is certain: the provinces are divided on this issue. So it would be counter-productive for Parliament to vote prematurely, when it is the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that must set the boundaries of the discussions between the provinces and the federal government. Just like Quebec, we are completely opposed to displacing the financial expertise we have in the Montreal region.
Why does the Bloc not want to wait to hear the Supreme Court opinion? Why does it want to open this debate now, when there is no serious bill on the horizon?
I am getting to the key point of my speech. Liberal governments have long been recognized for their solid financial leadership. Our stable financial system, developed by the Liberals, became an international model during the economic crisis. The best approach is to protect investments and to ensure that each of the regions does not lose its specific knowledge.
The Liberals agree that when it comes to provincial-federal relations, the Prime Minister has failed, and we are opposed to the Conservatives' unilateral approach that just results in tensions. On many occasions we have urged the government to get the opinion of the Supreme Court. Now that it has, we just have to wait to hear from the court.
So let us wait for the Supreme Court's opinion.
G8 and G20 Summits June 8th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, we now understand the origin of the biggest financial mess in Canadian history, the $1 billion mess, the Conservative mess. We could have built three coliseums in Quebec City with the billion dollars.
All that money for a summit that will ignore Canadians' priorities because of the Prime Minister's program that denies both climate change and women's right to choose.
Why are they being so arrogant with taxpayers' money?