Meili Faille

[The Quebec Nation, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this week the government had another opportunity to demonstrate its support for the Quebec nation but it refused to endorse the Bloc Québécois motion on French as the language of work in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois regularly extends its hand to allow this government to make recognition of the Quebec nation more than an empty gesture. The Conservative government rejects it all, every time, and comes back with increasingly preposterous suggestions. Their latest is a big one: to link recognition of the Quebec nation to achieving a majority in the coming election. Not long ago, the adoption of a rescue plan for the manufacturing and forestry sectors was tied to approval of the budget. This atmosphere of déjà vu leaves a bad taste.

The Bloc Québécois remains open to any action that will lead to making the Quebec nation a reality but it should not be subject to shameless blackmail.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

In fact, nothing could possibly justify the federal government's obsession with interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces should have been consulted more, for the direction taken by this government goes against what the provinces want. And this is true not only for the Government of Quebec, but also for the Government of Alberta.

I have some quotations from other individuals, including the president of the British Columbia Securities Commission, who said:

Canadians do not feel that the authorities treat investment fraud as seriously as other crimes. They think that people who defraud others “generally get away with it.”

A number of other people feel that the federal government should focus on its own areas of jurisdiction, such as the Criminal Code, for instance, specifically in order to address economic fraud.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to debate securities. I am pleased to rise to speak to regulation. This matter, raised in the House by the Bloc Québécois, gives us an opportunity to shed new light on the myths perpetuated by the federal government in an effort to discredit the operation of the existing securities system.

The subject has been much written about these days, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the financial sector is a major employer. According to Quebec's Institut de la statistique, nearly 150,000 people are employed in the financial sector in Quebec together with a multitude of self-employed individuals in related areas. It is a large sector providing quality employment, a flourishing industry now accounting for 6.2% of Quebec's gross domestic product.

Then there is the Montreal Exchange. It has enjoyed exceptional growth, and its impact is felt beyond the borders of Canada. It currently has an agreement to carry out all derivatives trading ending in March 2009. Does this centralizing obsession veil intentions by the Toronto Stock Exchange to interfere with Montreal's place as a stock exchange and its expertise in the derivatives sector? I would hope not and would hope that Montreal will be allowed to develop the enormous potential of the derivatives market in Montreal.

That said, let us look at how things have developed.

There have been a number of proposals in recent years to restructure the Canadian securities regulatory system. The first, advocated by Ontario and the federal Minister of Finance, involves establishing a single regulatory body. The second is the passport system, that is, a harmonization of the provincial regulatory bodies in order to create an effective Canada-wide system. It involves building on what already works.

The provinces have already done a huge job improving securities regulation in Canada and its efficiency. Information technology has, for example, been improved. Canada wide systems and practices have been put in place. This means the elimination of many jobs previously done locally by the individual securities commissions.

Today, we have the system for electronic document analysis and retrieval, SEDAR; the system for electronic disclosures, SEDI; the national registration system, NRS; the national registration system database, NRSDB; and the mutual reliance review system, MRRS. In addition, 25 national guidelines and 24 national policies have been issued with respect to key matters, such as prospectus requirements, regulation of mutual funds, issue of royalties, regulation of take-over bids, prospectus and registration exemptions, ongoing information requirements, and so on.

Clearly, improvements have been made toward improving the operation of the entire securities system.

Of course, we can do better, and all the provinces have decided to implement a passport system. Ontario, which originally instigated the system, has decided to go off on its own, which is unfortunate. The federal government should encourage it to join the other provinces and territories in implementing the second stage, which is expected to take place by the end of 2008.

A Canada-wide passport system provides every person, issuer or registered broker, with a one-stop option for accessing Canadian markets. This change is not insignificant. It required a lot of effort by individuals and various governments, and the federal government has to recognize that. The passport system allows access to financial markets across Canada by dealing only with the securities authority that has jurisdiction. Any broker or representative that wants to do business across Canada simply has to register with the authority that has primary jurisdiction.

The passport system is based on what works well. It would help eliminate overlapping administrative tasks and be as efficient as a central agency.

In order to show good will, the federal government should encourage Ontario to join the passport system, stop going its own way and follow suit so as not to compromise the implementation of the second phase of the system. The Minister of Finance of Canada should use his influence to encourage Ontario to listen to sage advice.

But the Conservative government insists on promoting its single securities commission. Some people here in this House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs among others, suggested that the government ask the Supreme Court to rule on the federal government's constitutional jurisdictions with respect to securities. It would be wise for the federal government to consult the provinces on this and not to embark on an operation that could leave a bitter taste.

We can look at the results and the criticisms of the current system. I can simply cite the Premier of Alberta. He made the following statement in a speech to the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto:

—I want to make my position...very clear. The passport system is a model provinces can quickly implement to create a national system—so let's accept the passport and move on to other matters.

On this, the Alberta position is fairly clear, as is Quebec's moreover, according to the statements by minister Jérôme-Forget. The present system compares favourably with that of other territorial jurisdictions. In 2006, a study by the World Bank and Lex Mundi ranked Canada third in the world out of 155 countries as far as investor protection was concerned, while the U.S. ranked seventh and the U.K. ninth. The 2006 OECD report placed Canada second out of 29 countries for the quality of its securities regulations, ahead of the U.S. in fourth position, the U.K. in fifth and Australia in seventh.

It is surprising, in the light of such results, that the federal government continues to denigrate the Canadian regulatory system, both here and elsewhere.

My colleagues have also spoken of the federal government's myths about the competitive nature of the Canadian market. The principal arguments are, first, that our regulatory system is more unwieldy and more costly, which is totally wrong. Second, that our regulatory system supposedly involves additional financing costs to business. Third, that the single commission would cut transaction costs on the secondary market.

As far as the first myth about the supposed higher cost of our regulatory system, I cannot understand that the government is making this as a serious claim. The direct costs of regulation per million of capitalization in 2002 were $145.80 in Canada, compared to $141.90 for the federal regulatory bodies in the United States. That is not much of a difference.

As for the second myth, once again the facts contradict the arguments in favour of a single regulatory commission as far as costs are concerned. For one thing, the factors determining financing costs are three-fold. First, there are fees to brokers, costs relating to legal fees, honorariums for prospectus preparation, and share cost evaluations. Studies show that the total average direct cost of small Canadian business issues is less than the American.

As for the third myth, reduced transaction costs on the secondary market, the solution in my opinion still lies in the competitive nature of Canadian capital markets. The real problem lies is the low level of market competition. That would not in any way be remedied by the creation of a single body.

The federal government ought to deal with some of the elements that do fall under its jurisdiction, including beefing up the means of sanctioning offences against securities legislation, in order to deal properly with white collar crime.

[Ethics, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of ethics, the truth is that after being in power for only 24 months, this government has a rap sheet as long as, if not longer than, the one the Liberals accumulated in 10 years. Not only is the Conservatives' conduct deplorable, but they are also trying to hide the truth. They are making a mockery of their promise to be beyond reproach.

Will they finally admit that their transparency is a facade and that they are following in the previous government's footsteps?

[Ethics, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, now we have the problem of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie. Before that, it was the political interference of deputy press secretary Soudas in Michael Fortier's office. There was also the director of communications' refusal to comment on the Cadman affair.

Is this not proof that the Prime Minister's inner circle, as well as all members of this government, do not practice what they preach when it comes to transparency?

[Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame Gala, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I denounced the CBC's attitude toward francophone artists. I will go one better today because the CBC decided to cut images of all francophone artists from the broadcast two months ago. In fact, that is why Martin Duchesne, a Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame board member and the Quebec bureau chief, stepped down.

He said that in previous years the francophone broadcasters were told to keep away from the anglophone broadcasters and keep their speeches short. The artists had to leave an empty chair between francophones and anglophones for the sole purpose of editing images out of the broadcast. This event was planned and structured to eliminate francophone artists from the televised gala.

What is even more appalling in this entire affair is that not a single member of Parliament from Quebec, except those from the Bloc Québécois, stood up in this House to denounce the CBC's shameful attitude toward francophones.

[Foreign Affairs, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House today and to speak to this issue. Motion M-410 suggests that punitive action be taken against Sudan and Iran. It seeks essentially to encourage Canada to exert pressure on the regime in Tehran, Iran, and the Sudanese government.

I believe that the member for York Centre wishes to break the silence, here in this House, about these human tragedies. However, the proposed measures will not be fruitful without a more comprehensive consideration of the impact of such measures. I do not understand what led the member to propose a single initiative for two countries that are in totally different situations. Each case could be dealt with separately, and that would probably be the most effective way of proceeding.

It is possible that such measures would have no effect on the targeted governments and that the only result would be a serious disruption in the peace and security of these regions. To find a solution, we must deal with the situations in Iran and the Sudan separately. It was unwise to suggest dealing with these two different cases in the same motion. What are needed are measures that will lead civil society to change and an investment in peacebuilding efforts. We must see to it that the means to implement an agreement are put in place.

What is tragic is that governments must also revisit their restrictive administrative practices with respect to the citizens of these countries. Western and European countries give in to the blackmail of these autocratic regimes, which do not respect international rules. For example, we need only consider the rules for immigration and refugee status applicable to refugee claimants from these two countries.

We have seen cases, situations in which people have argued on the basis of their sexual orientation, and their cases have not been given a proper hearing. They have been removed to those countries. So we have to review some of the measures and policies that apply here. We have to look at Canada’s position as a whole. We have to look not only at what goes on outside Canada, but also at what goes on here, in our own country.

It is hard to believe that when the government negotiates its policies it does not take into consideration the fact that when it grants asylum, it is engaging in actions that appear hostile to those countries, and that this could be damaging to talks.

There are examples. For instance, in France, the government has signed bilateral agreements with Iran to protect the economic interests of the Total company. That happened in 2003. It is one example among many. I know that my colleague from the Montreal region talked about some of them. If I am not mistaken, it was my colleague in the NDP who identified Total. A little research into that company reveals that not only French interests are involved; Canadian and other foreign interests are also involved. These countries have signed bilateral agreements, but they apply policies domestically that they use during negotiations within the framework of those agreements.

There is another matter that it is difficult to assess: the effectiveness of those regimes at infiltrating our intelligence services. For example, testimony given by people from Iran or the Sudan, who are now here, reveals that they engage in disinformation.

It is clear to observers that the Islamic regime cannot tolerate internal reform. We can see this. If I am not mistaken, some of my colleagues have raised this here in the House. At present, students are marching in the streets, women are being oppressed, and there have been thousands of public executions.

These facts are known, and we have to take them into consideration.

The number of people executed in Iran has now risen above 150,000. This is no small number, and it is alarming. The people of Iran are entitled to better support and better protection against an ideology that systematically blocks the emancipation of women in Iran.

I agree with what my other colleagues have said in this House. We have to initiate a debate so that, as I said earlier, we can find a way to make appropriate changes to our international affairs policy. We have to consider the question so that we can formulate a more coherent policy, one that is more respectful of the democratic aspiration and of our values.

The autocratic nature of these regions clashes with the values that our society holds dear, values that include equality between men and women, freedom to participate in civil society, freedom of expression and our opposition to the death penalty, to name but a few.

I must also point out, however, that we have to oppose any unilateral action. We have to work within the parameters of the international framework and the United Nations rules. We must therefore reinforce the multilateral approach.

We may question the effectiveness of the motion, considering Canada's political weight. Canada has hardly any investments in Sudan or Iran, so if it acts unilaterally, its action will have little impact on those countries. Sudan and Iran's largest economic partners are Russia and China. So even if Canada starts withdrawing investments, Sudan and Iran can always continue their business relationships with their partners, which would mean that Canada's actions would have almost no effect.

We believe that measures will carry more weight if we take a broader view of the issue and if we let the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade do its work.

The issue raised in the motion by the member for York Centre is premature.

Negotiations are underway with Iran. Taking such a measure now could harm these discussions and could affect Canada's potential international position. A resolution has been passed to sanction Iran. I think that Canada can work within this framework—or at least the government can be forced to do so.

Canada's current legislation already places significant importance on economic sanctions in multilateral fora. So if the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade agrees, nothing will stop the government from taking action then.

I will leave it at that for now.

[Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame Gala, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is outraged by CBC's affront to Quebec artists, particularly to Claude Dubois, who was invited to receive an honorary plaque for his work from English Canada at the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame gala broadcast on Monday night. All the francophone artists were cut from the televised broadcast. Nothing can justify this insult to Quebeckers and francophones.

The author of Femmes de rêve had accepted this invitation to receive this honour because he was assured that the event would be apolitical. It was so apolitical that only one of the two solitudes ended up being seen by television viewers. And yet, Claude Dubois gave Quebec the distinction of having one of the best record sales in Canada, selling 250,000 copies of Duos Dubois.

This is a prime example of how important Quebec is to the rest of Canada. That is how much the Quebec nation matters.

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, Michael Fortier, the unelected minister and senator from Rougemont, was given four opportunities to run for office during byelections in Quebec, but he refused all four. That says a lot about how important he thinks democracy is. This situation cannot go on without being considered an abuse of power. Michael Fortier has no status as a representative of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

Let us take a moment to discuss his remarks during a broadcast of Tout le monde en parle, about how the other place is expensive, and about how its members do not work very hard. He seems to have learned quickly, because in the past two years, he participated in only five of 34 votes, he delivered two speeches, and he did not even participate in the vote on Bill C-2, which his government deemed a confidence matter.

What did he fail to understand about his own government's expectations, and what does he fail to understand about the concept of democracy? He should face the voters as soon as possible.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said in my speech, I consulted with the people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and they were quite clear on the environmental issue. They want practical steps to fight climate change. We are certainly investing in hydroelectricity in Quebec. We encourage it, therefore, and expect to receive what is owed to us by the government and due recognition of the efforts that Quebec has made.

Other ideas came out as well. People were very disappointed with the rebates for hybrid vehicles, that is to say, the money that was provided for a program to encourage people to use vehicles that are safer for the environment. People also think that the government should do more to tax industries that pollute. In addition, people wanted more significant investment in public transit.