Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer that question, which is related to the last part of my speech. I did not have time to talk about that issue because I was not given very much time.
Our position is well known. We oppose the government's attempts to create a single national securities regulator. The December 2011 Supreme Court ruling was clear. I would like to quote from that ruling:
The proposed Securities Act represents a comprehensive foray by Parliament into the realm of securities regulation. If validly adopted, it will create a single scheme governing the trade of securities throughout Canada subject to the oversight of a single national securities regulator.
The Supreme Court's decision was clear, so why is the federal government still pursuing its agenda by maintaining the transition office? I should point out that the federal government has already dumped $27 million into the project, and that was before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.
At the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, I asked how much the government has spent since the Supreme Court ruling in an attempt to get around it even though it was clear.
Currently, all of the provinces but Ontario belong to a passport system, which allows for instant accreditation across Canada, except in Ontario. That means that if a person is an accredited stockbroker or portfolio manager in Quebec, or if a company is listed on an exchange, it is automatically accredited in all of the other provinces.
The Canadian government's goal of stronger nationwide regulation can be achieved through organizations, such as the Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec, that work together in Canada. That is what the federal government should be doing.