Monique Guay

[Ariane Moffatt, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, singer-songwriter Ariane Moffatt is raking in the awards, and she deserves it. This young, talented Quebec artist received two prestigious awards this spring: the Juno for francophone album of the year and the Rapsat-Lelièvre prize, both for Tous les sens. Most recently, she was awarded the Diane and Lucien Barrière Foundation prize in Paris.

This prize is awarded every year to a performer selected by a jury of ten top names in the field. In 1999, the Groupe Lucien Barrière Hôtels et Casinos created a foundation to support contemporary creativity in the arts from literature to film and theatre, the only one of its kind in France.

The award includes a cash prize that Ariane will certainly find useful once she begins her 12-city tour of France.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would once again like to applaud her exceptional talent, and we are sure that she will be very successful in France.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will not resort to demagogy, because I am not a demagogue, but I can tell you one thing: in Quebec, we work hard and we get things done. Things have to happen in Quebec. Quebec must make its own decisions and it is not up to the federal government to tell us what to do in our areas of jurisdiction. We can do the job ourselves.

However, when the government has a responsibility towards the provinces, with EI, for example, but does nothing to help the public, nothing to help the manufacturing industry and nothing to help people get back to work, then it is simply abrogating its responsibility.

The government should let us deal with our areas of jurisdiction and our securities. We will continue to do so anyway. Let us become a country. People will see. Things will get done in Quebec.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Of course, the federal government should stay in its own jurisdictions and stop duplicating everything. The problem is apparent in many fields, such as immigration or health. Now, we have the problem of isotopes, and it is serious. At the Saint-Jérôme hospital, in my riding, 70% of appointments for cancer tests had to be cancelled due to an insufficient supply of isotopes. The House is not focusing on what really matters. The government is trying to move forward with the regulation of securities, while some problems which are much more important need to be solved and are within the federal jurisdictions. But the government cannot even face those problems.

We have been talking about employment insurance for months and even years. For years, we have been asking for the abolition of the two week waiting period. Why must we punish someone for losing her or his job? We are taking away two weeks of pay from a person who has a family, children, a mortgage and a car. It does not make sense. It would cost almost nothing for the government to eliminate the two week waiting period. People pay into employment insurance all of their working life. Why must they be penalized?

These are all issues we are asking the government to deal with, but instead of taking care of what really matters, it is trying to poke its nose into provincial jurisdictions and to mess up something which is already working very well in Quebec, in other provinces and in territories. That is the problem.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will go about it step by step. When the government decided to order a study aimed at creating a Canada-wide securities regulator, Quebec's National Assembly reacted quite strongly, of course, and a debate ensued. The National Assembly adopted a motion unanimously, with support from every party: the provincial Liberal Party, which is in power, and the Parti Québécois. The motion was moved on October 16, 2007. It reads as follows:

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

The National Assembly reiterated its opposition on January 15, 2009, through a second unanimous motion requesting that the Assembly reiterate its strong opposition to the plan for a Canada-wide securities commission.

The reason Quebec's National Assembly moved two motions on this subject was to protect Quebec's securities system, which is a perfectly normal and reasonable position. Why create a single securities regulator in Canada when each province already has one? It is mind-boggling. The government is sending the message that it wants to centralize.

Centralization is not desirable. The securities regulation system works very well in Quebec and it works well in other provinces. We heard from different political parties about their concern with securities in their province. We have a centralizing federal government that wants to change everything and create a Canada-wide securities commission in order to control everything: Quebec's economy, other provinces' economies and investments. It is utterly unacceptable.

We will no longer have any powers because all decisions will be made at the federal level. We are getting mixed messages, though. We are told that we are a nation within a united country. Great. But what does that mean for Quebeckers? Absolutely nothing. We are told that we have a seat at UNESCO. That is not a seat. It is a folding chair in the back, and we have to go along with what Canada says. That is precisely what we got: a tiny stool for Quebec behind the Canadian representatives. It is not true that we have a seat at UNESCO with a real right to speak, as will be made clear. There is currently a meeting taking place, and we will be able to see exactly how things go. We will see whether it is true that we have the right to speak for real and if we will be allowed to disagree with the federal government. We will see how it goes over the next few weeks. That is unacceptable.

I would like to read a letter and I think it is important. I realize I have little time left, but it is important because this is a letter from the former finance minister to the current Minister of Finance. This is a very important letter dealing with securities. It states:

Dear Colleague,

I have noted the appointment of your expert panel charged with making suggestions and recommendations concerning securities regulation in Canada.

First of all, I reiterate that the existing regulatory system in Canada works well and satisfies both the needs of pan-Canadian participants and the interests of the various regions. Accordingly, I will continue to oppose the implementation of any model leading to the concentration of market oversight responsibilities in the hands of a common or single regulator, regardless of how you call it.

The passport system that the participating provinces and territories are setting up is a significant and unprecedented initiative to further simplify matters for pan-Canadian participants. It is a cooperative approach by the provinces and territories that enables them to continue to monitor their local interests. [We all have different interests, as she says in her letter.] The systematic refusal to acknowledge the advantages of such a system leads me to wonder whether all this effort is truly aimed at improving protection for the investing public.

I must say that the federal government could apply its energies much more productively if, in its fields of jurisdiction, it worked to more effectively crack down on economic crime rather than trying to impose itself in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Given the mixed, to say the least, results it has achieved in combating economic crime, in spite of the money spent, it seems to me that the federal government is not doing enough to assume its responsibilities, in particular regarding criminal law.

As for the expert panel, I note that you have ignored the proposals made to you by the Provincial-Territorial Council of Ministers of Securities Regulation. In so doing, I believe you have missed a good opportunity to obtain information that would have helped you better understand the point of view of the provinces and territories. Unfortunately, I fail to see that yet another panel, whose conclusions seem predictable to us, can bring anything new to this debate.

Believe me when I say that I am sorry to see you invest your effort and good will, which I in no way doubt, in such an ill-advised initiative when your energies could be applied much more productively.

This letter was written by Quebec's former finance minister, who was a Liberal Party minister and a federalist. It is very clear that she is against the idea because it really encroaches on our jurisdiction, our local purchasing, Quebec's economic development and all of the work that is being done already.

Moreover, it is still a question of duplication. Duplications are a drain of energy and cost a lot in time of economic crisis as the one we are going through. It costs a fortune. We need not invest in that right now. We should not waste public money, money that belongs to the ordinary Canadians who are out of work and going through financial hard times, to create a Canada-wide commission. It does not make any sense. It is not a good idea. The provinces and territories already have a system that is respected and admired on the international stage. Our passport system is ranked second in the world and it works well.

We have built an efficient system, but the Conservative government, with its heavy-handed approach, is destroying all the efforts we have invested during many years to establish efficient securities commissions in Quebec and in each of the other provinces and territories. When I consider the position of the Conservative government, I see that, once again, it is ready to overstep its jurisdiction.

I have only one minute left. It is too bad I was interrupted at the beginning of my speech; I would have had more time to speak.

We will fight against the measure. I see that the Liberals have decided not to vote on the motion although, in their time, they wanted to change the system themselves. Maybe thanks to a positive attitude in the House our motion will be adopted. I hope it will be. The NDP will support us. New Democrats members said so earlier. Maybe some Liberals will also support us.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that I spoke with some Liberal members who told me they agree with a buy local policy and a local development policy. This motion is the foundation for local buying. It allows us to manage our issues locally instead of having a Canada-wide commission deciding for us what we should do in our own communities.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

First, there is unanimity in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but could I ask you to call for order?

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance finds my remarks of interest.

I want to tell you right off that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I will go over the background of why we put forward this motion in this opposition day.

[Hélène Dorion, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Hélène Dorion, who lives in my riding, will be the first Quebecker to receive the Charles Vildrac poetry prize, to be awarded tomorrow in Paris, for her latest publication, Le hublot des heures. She was also the first Quebecker to win the Académie Mallarmé prize.

Hélène Dorion has published over 20 books in Quebec, France and Belgium, and has been awarded several prizes, including the Anne Hébert prize for her first novel, Jour de sable. She has also been awarded the Wallonie-Bruxelles international poetry prize, the Romanian international poetry festival prize, and the Académie des lettres du Québec's Alain Grandbois prize, among others, for her work. She is also a knight of the Ordre national du Québec.

Some have said that experiencing Hélène Dorion's poetry is like walking into a temple with neither walls nor ceiling. I hope that she will keep us dreaming for a long time to come.

[Bill C-306, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I spoke to Bill C-306, An Act respecting the use of government contracts to promote economic development at second reading . This bill will make it possible to create hundreds of jobs and, we hope, to attenuate some of the negative effects of the economic crisis we are going through.

What did the Conservative member and Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board have to say? “The year is 2009, not 1929. We live in a time when Canada no longer needs to prop up its industries with protectionist laws.”

As for the Liberals, they said they would not support Bill C-306 because “the bill seems aimed less at being passed than as a medium for certain partisan discussions.” Yes, let us send this bill to committee where it can be discussed. What a lukewarm reaction from the Liberals.

As for the workers of Quebec, they understand that one of the things a bill like C-306 is aimed at is economic recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, they were democratically elected. I understand that quite well, but they are a minority. As long as they are a minority, that is how it will be. We will always have our say, and I too was democratically elected here to this House,just like all the members from all parties. I think we do not need to keep bringing that up.

We have nothing against the companies, except that we know, and we have the evidence, that there are problems with Canadian mining companies all over the world. They have engaged in bad exploitation.

Why is there nothing in this free trade agreement with Peru about requirements to avoid these situations? On the contrary: preference is given to adopting voluntary measures, well never mind that, just say openly that you are going to exploit.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this will simply perpetuate the problem and the situation will get worse. It cannot improve, particularly when there has already been a signature opposing labour rights.

Imagine that a union tries to organize in Peru to protect mine workers, when the government has already refused to sign. At present there is absolutely nothing in this agreement to allow a union, an environmental group or any group that would be good for the country to take action and speak out against what is going on. They could have some power to respond and to make the company engaging in misconduct respond.

It is a waste of time from the outset. It is too bad. It is sad to see, but that is the decision made by the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals. We will remind them of it in the election campaign. Have no fear about that.