Robert Carrier

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague. He did a good job of exposing the absurdity of this decision, which was made under the radar this summer, when the House was not in session.

I do not want to go back over the various comments that could be made about the government's decision. The only thing I want to ask my colleague about is the fact that we have a government before us that believes in Canadian unity, in consulting the provinces and in collaboration. I wonder why the government is not consulting the provinces that have shared jurisdiction over this. That is the case for Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. These provinces have already spoken out against this policy that the government wants to bring in.

I would like the hon. member to say a few words about the need to respect jurisdictions and to consider what is best for the country before introducing such legislation.

[Petitions, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, signed by 2,813 Laval residents, that calls for the old St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary to be converted to include affordable or social housing and space for community organizations, all in coordination with the Government of Quebec and the City of Laval. This penitentiary is in my riding and has been closed for 21 years. That is the petition I am presenting today.

[Government Spending, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to Harperland, built for the modest sum of $2 million in taxpayers' money. This fake resort comes complete with a fake lake—even though the location is on the shore of Lake Ontario—and some comfy lakeside chairs where you can watch bucolic scenes on a giant screen.

The goal is to recreate Huntsville, in the riding of the Minister of Industry, a place you will not actually be able to see during the G8 and G20 summits. To be able to visit these facilities, you must be an accredited journalist, because this marketing pavilion is for you, and only you—whom the Conservative government is hoping to manipulate with this propaganda, because you are certainly not there to report on the facts.

And what does the rest of the world think about this? Who cares if the French foreign affairs minister, Bernard Kouchner, thinks that Harperland is costing too much money? All the Conservative government wants is to control the message as much as possible, at the expense of access to information.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is also my pleasure to join with all those celebrating Portugal's national holiday. Many of my constituents are originally from that country, and I am pleased to join in that celebration.

Now, to answer his question, which is a pertinent one and is somewhat similar to one that was put to me earlier, with respect to the fact that, even if a single regulator were established, Quebec could go it alone and keep its own system. It is a fantasy to think that it could work. It is easy to say that we can keep apart if we want to. I think, however, that all security issuers will want to be part of the overall system that was put in place for everyone. Since the current system is working, I see no sense in breaking something that is working, and risk introducing malfunctions that do not exist right now.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the Bloc Québécois wants a positive and functional approach for the country as it exists now. We know and our colleagues have often described it: Canada is a large country with 13 securities commissions. And all the observers and all the users say that the system works very well. There is no reason, no urgency and no need to change the system.

The government's bill does not mention the fact that it has recognized the Quebec nation. If the Conservatives were serious about this distinction, they would accept that it could perhaps be useful for this nation to choose how it will function because, after all, the current system is working for Quebec. What is more, Quebeckers, their government and all the business communities want the system to remain as it is. It is the government that is opposing the current, properly functioning system in this country.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

This morning, my colleague from Hochelaga, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance, moved the following motion:

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.

The elected members of this House must have their say on this issue, because as we know, on May 26, 2010 the Conservative government introduced proposed legislation that would create a Canadian securities commission. The Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to this attempt by the federal government to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. Under the Constitution, Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over securities regulation. The federal government's proposed Canada-wide securities commission ignores the fact that Quebec has responsibility for property and civil rights.

In addition, the current passport system works. With this system, a company that registers in one participating province can do business with people in all the other participating provinces.

This Canada-wide commission will strip Quebec of a very important economic tool. Major decisions will be made outside Quebec. As everyone knows, the Autorité des marchés financiers, Quebec's securities regulator, has a knowledge of Quebec's distinct nature and needs that a single commission in Toronto will not have. Jobs in the financial sector are threatened. This is a key sector of Quebec's economy that accounts for 155,000 direct jobs. In all, 300,000 jobs in Quebec are connected with the financial sector, which gives an idea of the impact of creating a Canada-wide commission.

With their proposed Canada-wide commission, the Conservatives are trying to do Montreal out of what it has for Toronto's benefit and are encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions. For these reasons, the National Assembly and the business community in Quebec reject the proposal.

Voluntary membership is a ploy. By destroying the passport system and counting on conflicts among the regulatory bodies, the Conservative government is creating a reason for issuing organizations to turn to the national commission. Contrary to what the Conservative government is saying, the existence of such a commission would not have prevented investors from being fleeced by white-collar criminals such as Earl Jones. He was a criminal who was not registered anywhere. In Montreal or in Toronto, he would have committed his crimes the same way. It is up to the RCMP to hunt down criminals. Similarly, the existence of a single commission in the United States did not prevent Bernard Madoff from defrauding investors of over $50 billion.

It is obvious that this commission will also be detrimental to the use of French in business. It is unlikely that companies registered with the single national commission, whether or not they are from Quebec, will be required to publish in English and French.

The Bloc Québécois reiterates its opposition to the creation of a national securities commission. The Bloc Québécois supports the current harmonization of the rules governing the financial system. The passport mechanism maintains the autonomy and jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. This mechanism has existed since 2008 and is also used in the European Union.

Creating a national securities commission goes against the wishes of the National Assembly, which unanimously adopted a motion in that regard on May 27, the day after the introduction of the Conservative government's draft legislation to create a national securities regulator:

That the National Assembly denounce the obstinacy of the federal government in tabling unilaterally a bill to create the Canadian Securities Commission; that it denounce this invasion into the fundamental jurisdictions of Quebec; that it recall the opposition of the Quebec business community; that, finally, it urge the Canadian government to reconsider this decision and, failing that, the Canadian Parliament not to pass such an act.

The Bloc Québécois position also acknowledges the growing concern of the business community with regard to the Canada-wide commission. The president of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, Françoise Bertrand, said:

In addition to potential job losses resulting from this project, we are also concerned about a significant transfer of decision-making positions and expertise out of Quebec. Montreal, as a financial centre, and Quebec will be weakened.

A coalition of representatives from Quebec's business community is opposed to a national securities commission

Here are just a few of them: the Québec Mineral Exploration Association, the Québec Bar, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Cascades, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Quebec City chamber of commerce, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Chambre de la sécurité financière, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Fédération des Chambres de commerce du Québec, the Power Financial Corporation, the Solidarity Fund QFL and Le Groupe Jean Coutu. I will not go on because the list is too long. The entire business sector is opposed to a centralized securities regulator.

I would now like to read a Government of Quebec news release dated May 13, 2010. I think this is important because it sums up the Government of Quebec's official position and is not subject to interpretation.

Quebec's Minister of Finance, Raymond Bachand, condemned statements by a number of Conservative government ministers and members who are using weak, questionable arguments in an effort to sell their proposal for a centralized securities commission and denigrate the perfectly functional existing system.

The minister pointed out that, in Canada, securities regulation falls under the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. The minister emphasized the fact that, “The OECD has ranked Canada second in the world [as previously mentioned] with respect to the quality of its securities regulation, while the World Bank has ranked it fifth for investor protection, placing it ahead of the United States”. He added, “Given these international organizations' approval of Canada's financial system, it is clear that the provinces are fulfilling their responsibilities under their constitutional jurisdiction. Provincial commissions, which are in touch with consumers and work with their counterparts, provide the best possible protection to consumers in Quebec and the other provinces”.

The minister noted that the federal government has structured its disinformation campaign around a document filled with unfounded hypotheses. The government is falsely suggesting that Canada's current system increases the cost of raising capital, claiming that this leads to major financial losses and a negative impact on employment in the sector. Mr. Bachand emphasized that several analyses show that costs in Canada are equal to or even lower than those in the United States.

In conclusion, Minister Bachand said:

I am appealing to the sense of responsibility of the federal Conservative government's ministers and members, whose negative and irresponsible comments about this matter have created instability and tarnished Canada's reputation for securities regulation.

I ask the members of the House to support this motion if recognizing the Quebec nation means anything at all to them.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Outremont on his fine presentation and his insight. This adds to the importance of our motion today. This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance listed all the good reasons for establishing a single regulator. He said that it was in the best interests of what is good for the country as a whole.

Given that 155,000 direct financial sector jobs in Montreal, Quebec, and another 300,000 jobs in the financial sector as a whole are being jeopardized by this government initiative, could the member sum up the government's thinking, which is basically that it wants our money and will get it?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleague for his question. The fact that the official opposition, which is the largest party in opposition, is already announcing that it will not vote against this bill, undermines the foundations of the functioning of the parliamentary system, which requires that every bill must be studied on its merits. There is a leadership problem in the opposition across the country. The opposition is theoretical and virtual and does not fulfil its full role in our democratic system.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this point. Clearly, the six parts of this bill that really should be separate bills are inconsistent with a normal democratic system. We should be able to amend every bill, taking into account the various procedures, so we can take the time to hear witnesses and propose amendments to ensure that bills really meet the needs of the public.

Our system is working very poorly because the official opposition has already announced that it will support the budget implementation bill. It is giving in to the will of the government, which can now do whatever it likes.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

We are at third reading of Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois voted against this Conservative bill at second reading because, in addition to not meeting Quebec's needs, it undermines Quebec's economic development, against the wishes of Quebec's National Assembly.

We obviously supported the NDP amendments at report stage that would have deleted parts of the bill.

Although it has been shown that this bill is unacceptable for Quebec, it has still made it to the final stage, thanks to the complicity of the Liberal opposition, which arranged that the bill would receive enough support through all the stages.

In their speeches, the Liberals—and we just heard an example—make some pro forma criticisms of the bill but when it comes time to vote there are enough absentees to allow the bill to pass, because it is a confidence vote.

This so-called official opposition does not want to defeat the government. In order to make themselves understood, they even announced in advance what they would do, supposedly because the voters do not want an election. It was very easy, therefore, for the Conservative government to introduce major changes to other bills in six parts of this one in order to quietly slip them through.

The Conservatives also took advantage of the opportunity to trample all over the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces by creating a Canada-wide securities commission in Toronto.

I like to think that the ideal would be a good government that is concerned about the well-being of the population, old people and our fragile environment and, insofar as Quebeckers are concerned, considers us a nation, as it did officially acknowledge. But that is not what this Conservative government elected in the fall of 2008 is doing.

We should all remember that this is a minority government and the opposition parties exist precisely to express their opinions, say why they disagree, and oppose when necessary.

A general election is obviously a major undertaking for the various parties and there are necessarily costs involved, but the social and monetary costs of more years of Conservative rule are much more onerous, especially for Quebec.

I would like to speak now about my riding of Alfred-Pellan. A Liberal candidate was chosen about a year ago and he seems to have been campaigning ever since, in case there is an election. It just goes to show how indecisive and inconsistent the Liberals are.

It is only natural for a candidate to work hard for success during an election campaign, but perhaps this one should be reminded that his party does not even want an election. In any case, I would like to know what kind of alternative a Liberal candidate would currently offer.

Today is the last chance for all the members from Quebec to oppose this bill.

It contradicts two unanimous votes in the Quebec National Assembly, and it is simply unacceptable for members from Quebec to be complicit in it, given that the Quebec nation was officially recognized in this House.

There was a unanimous request from Quebec that the government provide $2.2 billion in financial compensation for the harmonization of the sales tax. Still the government refuses, despite the agreements that were signed with five other provinces for a total of $6.8 billion.

On March 31, 2009—more than a year ago—the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion asking the federal government to treat Quebec fairly and equitably by providing compensation comparable to what Ontario is receiving for harmonizing its sales tax.

Despite the repeated pleas of the Government of Quebec and all the attempts of the Bloc Québécois to correct this injustice, the Conservative government is still refusing Quebec’s requests.

What was possible with five other provinces does not seem to be possible with the one that is in fact recognized as a nation. That is unacceptable to Quebec.

What can we say now about the government’s intention of trampling the powers of the provinces and of Quebec by creating its national securities commission, again in spite of a unanimous vote against it by Quebec?

The entire economic community of Quebec is mobilizing against this coup. The editorial writer in La Presse, a newspaper owned by Power Corporation that is in fact dedicated to defending federalism in Quebec, says, and I quote: “The expression ‘predatory federalism’ is overused, but that is what this comes down to.”

In addition, the editorial writer in Le Devoir says, in an editorial entitled “Perverse process”, that if the government wins in the Supreme Court, it would be a flat-out intrusion into a provincial field of jurisdiction, another step toward centralization of the country.

He goes on to say that the trap lies in the provinces’ freedom to join in the process. The three recalcitrant provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec, will not be able to resist the pressure from the market.

We are looking at a poorly disguised attempt at constitutional fraud. Once it has its foot in the securities field, the federal government will find it easy to expand its sphere of activity, while Quebec’s will shrink, against its will. The members from Quebec must not take part in this attack on the Quebec nation.

This negation of Quebec in the bill was not enough. Taking advantage of the Liberals’ acknowledged servility, the government has introduced very significant amendments to other statutes in this bill that it does not have the courage to put forward and defend by introducing separate bills, as our democratic parliamentary rules require.

In the few minutes available to them, witnesses we heard in committee expressed their confusion in the face of the lack of consideration given to subjects as important as the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation, the privatization of Atomic Energy Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Employment Insurance Act.

I would like to speak specifically about part 24 of the bill, which amends the Employment Insurance Act. The Bloc Québécois called for substantial improvements to the scheme. Instead, the bill hands us the following measures: the 2010 budget closes the employment insurance account and creates a new account, the employment insurance operating account; and the accumulated employment insurance surpluses are eliminated finally and permanently, with retroactive effect to January 1, 2009.

The employment insurance surplus, amounting to more than $57 billion on March 31, 2009, will disappear for good.

That was not enough. Lifting the freeze on premium rates in 2011 as set out in the bill will not even improve the system. The government will help itself to surpluses estimated at $19 billion between 2011 and 2015. It is appalling that they will penalize the workers of Quebec and Canada like this.

Out of respect for the people of my riding of Alfred-Pellan, I will vote against this budget, which clearly does not meet their needs and in fact works against their development and progress. In fact, I would like to see all members of this House from Quebec show some solidarity at this crucial moment and oppose this bill.