Finance Committee on May 28th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

I have Mr. Brison on this.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I just want to ask a question, to go back to the clarification that Bill C-60 seeks to provide.

Just to be specific, this is simply a clarification of which measurement of GDP, GDP growth, will be used. Is that what Bill C-60 is seeking to do—to provide a clarification of which measurement of GDP growth will be used?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McGirr, please.

[Tom McGirr]

Mr. Chair, for clarification, the escalator that's going to be used for the CHT is going to be exactly the same one that's used in the equalization program, so a three-year moving average of nominal GDP.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, can I group clauses 110 to 125 together? Is that okay? No. Do you want me to separate out clause 125? Okay.

(Clauses 110 to 124 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 125 agreed to)

Can I group clauses 126 to 129? No.

Then we'll go to clause 126.

(On clause 126—Maximum payment of $18,000,000)

Go ahead, Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Briefly, Mr. Chair, we don't have any amendment on this. We support clause 126, but I just wanted to express concern regarding organizations receiving funding in this section. These funds have not proceeded through the proper estimates approval process, so while we support their receiving the funds, we believe the government should engage in better planning that would lead to more, not less, parliamentary oversight.

Our concern is only that it has not gone through the proper estimates process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clauses 126 and 127 agreed to)

(On clause 128—Maximum payment of $20,000,000)

Go ahead, Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like the record to show that I'm recusing myself from participating on the vote on clause 128.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

(Clauses 128 and 129 agreed to)

(On clause 130—Maximum payment of $5,000,000)

We have amendment NDP-9.

Ms. Nash, go ahead, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're certainly glad to see some funding for first nations education. We want to be clear that this funding in no way addresses the gap that exists between education for first nations and other non-first nations students.

The funding that's being offered here excludes Métis and non-status first nations, ignoring their needs with respect to post-secondary education. Métis and non-status students already receive no federal funding for post-secondary education. The government, as a constitutional duty towards all aboriginal people, should be providing this funding.

Our motion is to include Métis and non-status first nations back into this proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Your chair has a ruling.

Clause 130 of Bill C-60 provides for post-secondary scholarships for students who are registered as Indians under the Indian Act and for Inuit students. The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that unregistered first nations, Métis, and Inuit students would also be eligible for the scholarship. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the groups eligible to receive a scholarship, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. I therefore rule this amendment inadmissible.

That deals with NDP-9.

(Clauses 130 to 132 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 133)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We now move to Mr. Plamondon's third amendment.

Mr. Plamondon, you have the floor.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With this amendment, the wording would read as follows:

17. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, dissolve the Transition Office no later than July 12, 2013.

This is what was intended. The Supreme Court was consulted and it supported the provinces. Quebec, like three or four other Canadian provinces, disagreed. It has been established that securities are in provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. If we have the slightest respect for the Supreme Court, we must take its decision seriously and abolish the committee that is trying to centralize securities in a single place.

I remind the committee that, among industrialized countries, the current system is considered to be ranked second. In Quebec, at least, business, the four political parties in the National Assembly, academia and everyone consulted are unanimous. They all want to keep the current system because centralizing securities in a single location would harm the economic life of Quebec.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

I have a ruling on this amendment as well.

Bill C-60 would amend the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act in order to provide for the extension of the transition office until the Governor in Council decides to dissolve it. This amendment proposes to force the Governor in Council to dissolve a transition office no later than July 12, 2013. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the removal of the ability of the Governor in Council to extend the operation of a transition office would be contrary to the provisions of clause 133 of the bill, and therefore this amendment is inadmissible.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

But it is a Supreme Court ruling. So you are saying that the committee has more authority than the Supreme Court.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Plamondon, as the most experienced member of the House, you know that once the chair gives a ruling, the chair's ruling can only be challenged by a member of the committee or not challenged.

Okay. Merci.

All right. We'll go to discussion on clause 133.

Go ahead, Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I do not want to repeat everything that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois has said, but it is a fact that the Supreme Court has made a decision. One of our witnesses, from Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers, spoke very eloquently about Québec's opposition. Unfortunately, we had very little time to hear him. The same thing happened with all the witnesses and with all the clauses we were studying.

However, if we could have had a longer discussion with that witness, he would have confirmed that Quebec is not alone in opposing the establishment of a single regulator. All the provinces oppose it, in fact, except one. If we really wanted to provide financial market regulators with better coordination and better protection against systemic risks, it would have to be done with the agreement of the provinces and with the involvement of the structure that they themselves have put in place.

Establishing this office to prepare for the transition into a regulatory organization that will not achieve the purposes the government wants to see is holding up the process and the protection that our financial system needs. I have trouble understanding why the government is stubbornly moving in that direction. The Supreme Court decision clearly gives this jurisdiction to the provinces and recognizes the federal government's authority to intervene under certain conditions, such as providing protection against systemic risk.

The solution that the government is proposing at the moment runs counter not only to the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, but also to the achievement of the efficiency and the objectives that the federal government itself has set.

For those reasons, I would encourage the federal government to use the structure the provinces have established rather than stubbornly continuing in the same direction, in order to establish the organization as quickly as possible without going against the provisions and the ruling of the Supreme Court.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Caron.

We'll go to Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm asking the witness for clarification on the decision of the Supreme Court and what it meant for both the responsibilities and jurisdictional rights of the provinces and the federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Marion.

[Nicolas Marion, Chief, Capital Markets and International Affairs, Securities Policies Division, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to specify that I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give a legal opinion on the decision of the court. However, I have read the decision, and the Supreme Court did confirm a role for Parliament with respect to the regulation of securities, particularly as it pertains to preserving the integrity and stability of capital markets. It also confirms Parliament's role in criminal matters with respect to white-collar crimes. It also suggested that both Parliament and the provinces collaborate with one another in administering their respective responsibilities.

It did say it appears that the day-to-day regulation of securities is within provincial jurisdiction.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there anything further to this point?

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I have another question for the witness.

I recognize and I understand that you are not a lawyer, but you are familiar with the passport system that the provinces are currently using. In your view, would that current provincial structure allow the government to meet its objectives, with the manoeuvring room that the Supreme Court has provided, if the federal government agreed to work directly with the provinces and use the system that they have established?

[Nicolas Marion]

The short answer is no, because there are very specific limits attached to the passport regime. The system does not affect the enforcement of legislation. So the passport regime isn't necessarily intended to improve the law enforcement framework.

In addition, the passport regime has nothing to do with the governance framework related to the study of new policies, the development of regulations or their approval.

The passport regime most certainly has its advantages when you consider the review of documents involving a passport issuer, but that company still has to follow the specific provisions set out for the entire country. It has to—