Finance Committee on May 27th, 2021

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Division 5 of Part 4 of the bill is entitled “Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act”.

In Greater Montreal, Quebec, there is consensus among the securities regulators, which bring together the financial market regulators. It is that companies with head offices are very important to our economic model. When you add up all the jobs in the finance sector overseen by the Autorité des marchés financiers, you get a total of about 100,000 good jobs in Greater Montreal.

This part of the bill seeks to reinforce the transition to a single office. We know full well that this concept will become marginalized if everything is centralized in Toronto and they are allowed to continue to operate as they wish in Montreal. I would like to remind committee members that Canada is a federation. Not all powers have to be centralized in Ottawa. The same is true for financial powers, which do not have to be centralized in Toronto.

Centralizing Canada's securities regulatory regime in Toronto is a gift to Bay Street. No one gains by it, even in interprovincial trade. The passport system works well.

Bill C‑30 suggests that up to $119.5 million be allocated to this matter. Through this amendment, we propose to restore the value it should have, which is $1.

I remind you that the parties in Quebec's National Assembly are unanimous; they do not want this centralization, because it will be profoundly detrimental to Quebec's economic model and to the maintenance of corporate head offices. If you vote against this amendment and for the proposed centralization, you are voting against Quebec, where everyone agrees on it.

Before I close, I want to remind you of a very important piece of information. After two periods, the Canadiens are leading 3 to 1. Anything is still possible, and we can be optimistic. We wish the Canadiens all the best and we wish Quebec all the best.

I sincerely ask that you vote for my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I would like to advise you immediately that I will be calling for a recorded vote on the amendment and on this portion of the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie. We'll get to the vote as soon as we go through the list of speakers.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

My friend and colleague Monsieur Ste-Marie will be pleasantly surprised that I'm completely behind his support for the Montreal Canadiens; however, he'll not be shocked to find that I take a different view of his proposed amendment.

I'm curious. My understanding is that some serious work has been done with the transition office on fraud prevention, as well as on co-operation not only in the jurisdiction of Quebec but also with B.C., Alberta and Ontario. I'm curious to know whether officials can offer commentary as to the impact of the proposed investment in reducing the maximum financing to the office from the government to $1. What impact would that have on a day-to-day basis for the work that the office is actually doing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Who do we have for officials on this one?

Is it Ms. O'Brien, or are others coming online?

[Jean-François Girard]

It's going to be me, Mr. Chair, Jean-François Girard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Girard.

[Jean-François Girard]

Just to clarify the effect of this amendment, right now the appropriation in the legislation is set at $107.5 million, which essentially represents the cumulative amount that has been paid to the office since its creation in 2009. The amendment itself would increase the statutory appropriations by $12 million. I think that's a point that should be made to clarify the actual scope of this amendment.

With regard to the question from Mr. Fraser, the transition office, since its creation, has done a lot of work in multiple phases of the project. In the recent past, in the last couple of years, their focus has really been on developing what would be the management of systemic risk.

The corporate project had two components: One was the securities regulation that is done currently by the provinces, and the other element was the regulation of systemic risk in capital markets, which would be done pursuant to a federal authority and for which draft legislation was published a few years ago that would provide a framework for the prevention of systemic risk.

The focus of the transition office recently has really been on this management of systemic risk. If the funding were not to be provided, it would essentially cease the work that would be done pursuant to that federal legislation. Essentially, the office would have to close in the short term if the funding were not extended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ste-Marie, do you want to make a comment here before we go to a vote?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Girard for his response.

That is exactly what I am asking: that the transition office cease its operations. The Autorité des marchés financiers and all of its counterparts in every region of Canada are fully capable of doing studies on systemic risk.

Rather than following a more effective model, we are giving a gift to Bay Street, which wants to centralize its power over securities rather than ensure that securities are representative of all provinces and regions.

I remind you that this is extremely important. We have consensus in Quebec, and 100,000 jobs are at stake. In addition, in the Quebec model, corporate head offices are generally in the Greater Montreal area or they report to Montreal. Going ahead with this project would mean shutting down the Quebec economy. The Quebec model is at issue here.

Mr. Girard clearly said that the funding for this project has doubled. Is Canada a federation where the provinces still have powers or is everything being centralized? We no longer have a federation in a centralized country where everything is decided in Ottawa.

I remind you that we have a strong consensus among all parties in Quebec's National Assembly, and that even includes the Quebec Liberal Party. The whole of Quebec Inc., including Desjardins and all the companies headquartered in Quebec, is asking that this not happen. It's a major issue and it involves our economic model. Quebec's great companies are not U.S. subsidiaries. They have head offices that make decisions. Voting against my amendment and voting for this is a vote against Quebec.

When Mr. Fraser says he supports the Canadiens, my hat is off to him, but I ask him to go one step further and vote for Quebec by supporting my amendment.

Thank you, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Jansen is next.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I wonder if it's possible for Mr. Ste-Marie to further explain his position.

I'm not sure I quite understand it yet. I'm sorry. Could you broaden it out and maybe make it as simple as possible?.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I will try. I don't have all the notes in front of me. After all, it is a pretty complex financial issue.

This project, which was voted on a long time ago and has been dragging on, will shut down all the financial centres, in Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal, for example, and centralize everything in Toronto at the request of the big Bay Street banks. It would make Canada more centralized and less like a federation. Decisions on stock exchange securities are now made in Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal, which talk each other and have a passport system for interprovincial trade that works very well. They would be centralized in Toronto.

Quebec's economic model is at stake and is being destroyed. This is the only part of Bill C‑30 for which I am requesting a recorded vote, because if you vote against my amendment and for this portion of the bill, you will be voting against Quebec.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

May I ask a follow-up question of Mr. Girard?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You may.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Girard, does that correctly explain the situation? Is that accurate?

[Jean-François Girard]

To be fair, there's a divergence of opinion on the merits of this initiative. Some provinces are supporting it and some provinces are not supporting it. I don't think we can settle that tonight.

Going back to the amendment, it would provide funding to the transition office and the offices advising the federal government, as I mentioned, on how it could regulate and prevent systemic risk in capital markets. That would be under federal authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to Mr. Fast, and then maybe we can go to a vote.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Monsieur Girard, you said that some provinces are supporting it and some are not. Obviously Quebec is not. What other provinces are not supporting it?

[Jean-François Girard]

Notably, Quebec and Alberta have been vocal opponents of the initiative.

One of the main points to understand is that there are really two components to this initiative. One of them is the regulation of securities, as I mentioned earlier, which is done by the provinces right now. It would be pursued if the project were to go ahead, pursuant to provincial legislation, and it would be done through the advancement of a provincial initiative. The other component deals with systemic risk in capital markets. That one is the federal element. I think they're related but distinct elements of the project.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are we ready for the vote on BQ-4, which relates to page 185? All right.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Falk, do you have your hand up? Okay.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I request a recorded vote on this amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Amendment BQ-4 is lost.

On clause 158 as it is currently written, Mr. Clerk, could you do a recorded vote on that?

(Clause 158 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(On clause 159)

We are turning now to division 6, “Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law)”.

Who's on that? Is it you again, Ms. O'Brien? It's clause 159.

[Erin O'Brien]

I'm coming up, but my colleague Justin Brown will take us through both division 6 and division 7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

While we're waiting for Mr. Brown, I would remind committee members that we have an absolute hard stop at 9:30 Ottawa time, 10:30 my time. We cannot go beyond that, due to translation services. Obviously, we're going to have to find another time to deal with Bill C-30. I don't know when that will be.

We'll go to division 6, clause 159, and Mr. Brown.