Debates of June 10th, 2021

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, members of the House earlier today had a demonstration of another matter of privilege that went on for an excessive amount of time. The member is now standing up for yet another matter of privilege, and my concern, to get to the point of order, is that we might be witnessing the use of points of order to prevent members from being able to contribute to debate.

I am wondering if you could ask the member if he could give any indication of how long he is going to be. Members are supposed to be concise in their comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary's intervention.

Given the rules of the House, the hon. member is able to rise in the House and present his question of privilege. The hon. member did go through the proper process to notify me that he would be bringing this discussion to the floor. The regulations do not stipulate how long a member can speak, but they do stipulate that it should be a brief presentation, so I want to remind the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes of that.

I will not ask him how long he is going to speak. I will allow him to continue with his deliberation.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, to continue, these are the committee's words from the report:

It was, rather, her and Mr. Craig Kielburger’s 19 April 2020 call with Ms. Wernick that prompted her team to build a proposal based on Ms. Wernick’s directives.

[The minister] did not recall any instances of the term “volunteer” being used during the 17 April 2020 call, but the term “service opportunities” was used. [The minister] told the Committee that at the time of that call she was unaware that the Prime Minister would make an announcement regarding youth programming five days later, on 22 April 2020.

[The minister] was provided a briefing note concerning the call, which has since been disclosed, but she did not take notes during the call. After that meeting she asked her team to follow up with other federal officials regarding WE Charity’s proposal. She later stated that she never considered the entrepreneurship proposal, but that it was important for other officials “to be aware of it and to make sure they look into it and consider its merits.” [She] explained that she did not mention her 17 April 2020 call with WE Charity to the Finance Committee because they did not discuss the CSSG during that call.

The ethics committee offers a damning conclusion about this evidence at paragraph 224:

The Committee notes that when [the minister] spoke at Finance committee she failed to disclose her 17 April 2020 meeting with Mr. Craig Kielburger. In follow-up testimony before this Committee, she failed to disclose that those discussions included discussions about giving the WE Group the heads up that a “separate service stream” was in consideration. [The minister] failed in her obligation to be accurate with a committee and potentially impeded our work.

It is important for me to give further context and to unpack that a bit. Obviously it is tremendously concerning.

The troubling exchange that I referenced at the finance committee of July 16, 2020, occurred when I asked the minister, at page 11 of the evidence, “Did you discuss the program with anyone at WE before discussing it at cabinet?” The minister answered, “I did not discuss this program, the CSSG program, with anyone at WE.” If I may, I would say that the cartoon stink line started coming off of that answer just a couple of hours after the minister left the committee, when Rachel Wernick, a senior assistant deputy minister with the Department of Employment and Social Development, made reference, at page 25 of the evidence, to approving a briefing note for the minister in connection with a meeting with WE Charity.

Days after this finance committee meeting, the Toronto Star confirmed that on July 20, 2020, the minister had indeed met with WE Charity's Craig Kielburger on April 17, 2020, just days prior to the Prime Minister's launch of the Canada student service grant. Then, when Marc and Craig Kielburger appeared before the finance committee on July 28, 2020, they confirmed under oath that there had been a mid-April 2020 telephone conversation with the minister.

We can see that the ethics committee's second report offers a reasonable summary of the evidence given. It speaks to the point that the minister misled two parliamentary committees. It does not, however, adequately convey the real flavour of the minister's conduct at the committee, which is to say, the prevarication she displayed. I will quote a couple of sample exchanges of the minister's August 11, 2020, appearance at the ethics committee in order to give the Chair and the House a better sense of how the testimony had to be extracted from her.

First, there is my exchange with the minister, at page 19 of the evidence. I asked the minister:

At the finance committee I had the opportunity to ask you some questions, Minister. There was a disparity between my question to you and your response. I asked if you had spoken with the WE organization about the CSSG, and you responded that no, you hadn't, but you had spoken to them, we later learned, in the time period in question. I believe the date was April 17.

In that call, what details did you discuss with this organization? Was it about anything that would later appear in the proposal for the CSSG?

The minister answered:

Madam Chair, just to make sure it is on the record, on December 10, I appeared at WE Day in Ottawa after I had become Minister of Youth. That was to talk to an auditorium full of youth at the National Arts Centre.

The second time I interacted with WE Charity, Craig Kielburger personally, was over the phone on April 17, 2020. I had a phone call with him as well as another member of his team at 11:00 in the morning. That phone call lasted just over 30 minutes. We spoke about an unsolicited program in regard to youth entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and something that had been shared. As it was not something that I was not considering, I referred it to officials.

That phone call on April 17 was not in regard to the Canada student service grant at all. I did not comment on that.

This led my colleague, the member for Carleton, to try a different angle in getting the minister to give a full testimony to the committee. This exchange is at page 25 of the evidence. The member for Carleton asked, “Did the word 'volunteer' ever get spoken in your 30-minute meeting with Mr. Kielburger?” The minister answered, “Madam Chair, off the top of my head, it was more of a listening exercise than....” Here my colleague then prompted for an answer by saying, “Was it spoken, yes or no?” The minister then said, “Not that I'm aware of. I can't say that I said it.”

Later the member for Carleton asked, “Did someone else say it?” The minister replied, “Madam Chair, this is a lengthier answer, but I recall the conversation in regard to their advancing and sharing their unsolicited proposal. I listened to it.” The member for Carleton persisted by saying, “No, that's not my question. My question is about whether the word 'volunteer' was spoken. Was youth service mentioned?” Again, the minister dodged the question by answering, “Youth service is top of line for me.”

After the member for Carleton attempted to press the point, the Chair, the member for Lethbridge, intervened saying, “Minister, thank you. I do understand that, but the question that has been asked of you is quite simple. It is really a yes or no question. You need to respect the member who's asking you that question and answer accordingly. Thank you. Minister, yes or no?” The minister relented by replying, “I would say that 'service opportunities' was said, yes.”

From this point, the member for Carleton asked, “Of course, that grant wasn't mentioned because it wasn't created at the time of your meeting, but did you speak about anything at all other than the Kielburgers' social entrepreneurship...[program], anything at all, yes or no?” The minister answered, “I would have definitely asked how the youth that they were working with were doing in the face of the pandemic.”

In documents originally provided to the finance committee in which the Clerk of the Privy Council in his appearance before the ethics committee, also on August 11, 2020, undertook to provide to the committee and recorded at page 2 of the evidence saying “it transpired” that the following information would come to light.

In an undated memo, but obviously predating April 17, 2020, the deputy minister for diversity and inclusion and youth wrote to the minister entitled “Meeting with WE Charity founder Craig Kielburger”. This can be found at page 4,203 of the Department of Employment and Social Development's documents deposited with the committees. The summary, in a big, bold box at the top of the first page, is what is interesting here. I would like to quote that.

The document states:

On April 17, 2020 at 11 am, you are expected to engage in a conversation with WE Charity founder, Craig Kielburger, on their proposal (Annex A) which explores how the organization could support the Canada Service Corps (CSC) program as well as other youth programming efforts. Given the situation with COVID19, he may raise ways in which WE Charity can engage more actively in the short term to work with CSC.

Do not forget that this meeting did not just happen out of the blue. As we saw from other documents, testimony and the Ethics Commissioner's report, discussions were already well under way in other corners of government about a youth program and about contacting WE Charity. It is no wonder the minister wanted to hedge in her answers to committee.

The next document of special interest is from April 20, 2020. It is an email from Sofia Marquez at WE Charity to Ritu Banerjee, the executive director of the Canada Service Corps. It starts at page 430 of the Department of Employment and Social Development document. It states:

I wanted to give you a quick note following our meeting with [the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth] on Friday. Below the highlights:

...

[The Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth] expressed interest in exploring ways to adapt the entrepreneurship proposal we submitted to [the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade] and include a service component to it. She suggested that we should consider opening a service-stream for youth who are currently not well supported through virtual mentorship are looking for microgrants to advance their project. That effect, Craig reassured the Minister that if given the right policy objectives we could amend the proposal.

...

[The Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth] expressed her willingness, as next steps, to connect WE with her team and identify tangible ways to move this opportunity forward.

That sounds like a lot more engaged than a passive comment and the type that we heard from the minister when she said that she heard the term “service opportunities”.

There are three more documents I want to cite that all come from the morning of April 22, 2020, the Prime Minister's big launch of the Canada student service grant at Rideau Cottage.

First, we have Ms. Marquez' email to Alessia Avola, who was then the senior policy assistant to the small business minister at 9:02 a.m., found on page 2 of the documents deposited by the Department of Industry:

Allow me to share that we had the opportunity to connect with [the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth] and her team on Friday. I have the chance to discuss the social entrepreneurship program proposal and we're happy to share it was a productive conversation—she's very enthusiastic about the idea of supporting young Canadians during COVID-19.

One of the main points that came out of our call was the suggestion we should consider developing a second stream of programming focused on providing digital service opportunities.... Please note that Craig will be sending an email to Jason and the Minister today with the same update.

Here, she put at large smile emoticon.

There is, in my opinion, a large gulf between being “very enthusiastic”, including suggesting the second stream and what the minister told the member for Carleton, that she had some passing concern about how youth might be doing.

Then there is Craig Keilburger's 11:30 a.m. email to youth minister herself, found at page 50 of the Privy Council Office's documents—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask you to consider relevance here. The member is literally reading, almost verbatim, committee blues into the record. Perhaps you could explore that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on that point of order. With respect to relevance, I am presenting a question of privilege with respect to a minister of the Crown potentially having misled a committee of this House. The exchanges which speak to the veracity or not of the minister's statements are important.

With respect to the member opposite's assertion that I am reading the blues into the record, that is factually incorrect. In fact, I am quoting, for the benefit of the Chair, information that was deposited with committee by various ministries. I am not reading the blues into the record.

With respect to relevant quotes provided by the minister to give context to whether or not she gave answers that were misleading at committee, that is certainly relevant to my question of privilege on whether the minister made statements that were misleading to the committee.

On the question of relevance, I think you, Madam Speaker, would find that my comments are absolutely germane to the question of privilege that I am raising for your consideration.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate both points of order. I do want to remind the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes that in Bosc and Gagnon, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, it specifically mentions:

A Member recognized on a question of privilege is expected to be brief and concise in explaining the event which has given rise to the question of privilege and the reasons that consideration of the event complained of should be given precedence over other House business.

It also indicates:

When satisfied, the Speaker will terminate the discussion.

I would ask the member to wrap up his brief and concise information that he wishes to provide. I also want to remind the member that once a decision has been made as to whether a question of privilege is accepted, the hon. member will have a chance to debate this further.

I will allow the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes to wrap up.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much.

With respect to the passage you cited in Bosc and Gagnon, I would just ask, if possible, if you could ask one of the table officers if there has been precedent set on what the definition of “concise” is. I think Speaker Milliken did that, for context, with respect to how concise or what the definition of concise is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will recognize that the Chair will decide when that moment will come. I will allow the hon. member to wrap up his presentation on the question of privilege, and remind him again that it should be brief and concise. It does not have to go into every detail, because the hon. member would have an opportunity to do that once the debate is before the House, should the question be accepted.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do hope to furnish the Chair with sufficient information that they do find a prima facie case of privilege in this case, and of course will await your ruling on once we have reached the threshold of exceeding concise.

I would like to reference an email from Craig Kielburger on the date that I was previously mentioning. It goes to the youth minister herself and it is found at page 50 of the Privy Council Office's documents that they deposited with the committee. It says:

Thank you again for your time Friday. We greatly appreciated you so kindly listening to our proposal of a 12-month social entrepreneurship training and support program reaching 8,000 young participants during the COVID-19 era and beyond. We appreciate your thoughtful offer to connect us with relevant members of your Ministry. Over the weekend our team has also been hard at work to adapt your suggestion of a second stream focused on a summer service opportunity.

With respect to her “thoughtful offer” and her “suggestion”, again, one would never have suspected such an active role of being a catalyst for WE's $900 million program, given the minister's oral testimony at committee. It is little wonder that she danced with her words.

Finally, there is Mr. Kielburger's 12:16 p.m. email to Christiane Fox at page 78 of the Privy Council Office records. Before quoting it, let me remind the House that Ms. Fox was, at the time, the deputy minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and she had, until shortly before, been the deputy minister for youth when the Prime Minister served as youth minister. Turning to the email, it states:

We are processing in our conversations to provide a national program to support youth employment, entrepreneurship, and service during COVID-19. Understanding you're aware of the program we've been developing alongside [the small business and youth ministers], allow me to humbly ask whether you'd be willing to share it with [the Deputy Prime Minister], [the then innovation minister, the member for Mississauga—Malton] and any colleagues you believe would be interested.

A co-development, the plot just keeps thickening. Far from the passive assertion made by the minister, it gets further and further away from the picture that the minister tried to paint for the two committees of this House last summer before the documents and before this evidence surfaced. It now falls to us to sort out what to do with this state of affairs.

As the Speaker ruled on May 11, 2021 at page 7,021 of the Debates in respect of a question of privilege concerning misleading statements in the context of committee evidence:

There is no precedent where the Chair has used testimony from a committee without there being a report on the subject.

This aspect of the matter is a concern for the Chair. It is not for the Speaker to untangle the committee evidence to determine who knew what and when. Such an initiative would trespass on the role of committee members and constitute a breach of my duty to act with impartiality. It is up to the committee to continue its own study and to inform the House of its conclusions, if it deems it appropriate, as has been the tradition.

I would submit that the ethics committee has done its work. It has untangled all of the evidence, it has informed the House of its conclusion that the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth obstructed two committees of this House through misleading evidence. As for the matter that the minister took the solemn affirmation at the ethics committee but not at the finance committee, Bosc and Gagnon point out, at page 1,081:

...refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.

Madam Speaker, I sense that my time is drawing to a close and I will ask for your indulgence for a few more moments, but should my time expire I would just ask that any remaining information that I am unable to offer, I would like with your leave to be able to provide to you in written form for your consideration.

Bosc and Gagnon also comment at page 94 and 95:

...allegations that a witness has lied or misled a committee are taken seriously and may be pursued by the committee. If a committee determines that a witness has given untruthful testimony, it may report the matter to the House. The House alone is responsible for deciding if the witness has deliberately misled the committee and is in contempt of the House as well as for determining the appropriate punitive action. If the House determines that a witness has lied while testifying under oath and the House deems it appropriate, it may waive its privileges over the testimony and refer the matter to the Crown to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the witness with perjury for deliberately lying to a parliamentary committee.

The House has, in the past 20 years, held two witnesses in contempt for misleading committees. I have examples from 2003 and 2008.

In 2003, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates concluded that the former privacy commissioner, George Radwanski, had deliberately misled the committee in his testimony and should be found in contempt of the House. However, given that Mr. Radwanski apologized to the House in writing in addition to having resigned as an officer of Parliament, no sanctions were applied beyond the contempt finding.

In 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts determined that RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George had knowingly misled the committee in her testimony before the committee and recommended that she be found in contempt of the House, but ordered no further actions on the recommendation of the committee, which said, “as this finding of contempt is, in and of itself, a very serious sanction.”

For an example concerning a minister in 2011, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development provided the House with extracts of evidence given by the then minister of international co-operation. This report led to Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling on March 9, 2011, at page 8842 of the Debates. There was a prima facie case of privilege. The matter was referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, which heard from the minister and other witnesses, but it did not complete a report before Parliament was dissolved.

In my presentation on the government obstructing witnesses, I referred to an annual resolution of the United Kingdom House of Commons on witnesses. That was in a separate question of privilege that I raised with the House earlier today. That resolution contained a second paragraph relevant here. It states:

Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person has given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

Erskine May puts it at paragraph 15.5 as follows, “In the past, witnesses who have...given false evidence, wilfully suppressed the truth, or persistently misled a committee have been considered guilty of contempt.”

McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, comments in relation to witnesses' obligations to tell the truth at page 776, which states, “Even to prevaricate before a committee might invite questions.”

I do have remedies that I would like to propose to the Chair should you find a prima facie case of privilege. What I would like to do is, again, offer to deposit those with the Chair in written form so they would be included in consideration.

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines the verb to prevaricate as “Speak or act evasively or misleadingly”.

In the United Kingdom's House of Commons, several committee witnesses in the 19th century faced the wrath of the House when giving this type of evidence, with findings of contempt and even committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms or at Her Majesty's Goal of Newgate.

For example, cases may be found at page 601 of the Journals for August 28, 1835, and page 258 of the Journals for February 24, 1848. I will include in my written submission some further examples.

I do hear encouragement from the government side of the House, but I am trying to be concise.

A cousin of prevarication is the willful suppression of the truth. On March 3, 1828, a committee of the whole of the U.K. House of Commons considering the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill had before it a witness, Jonathan Fox, who spent about 90 minutes answering most questions with some variation of “I cannot say”. The witness was asked to withdraw while the committee deliberated. These deliberations, beginning in column 936 of the parliamentary Debates, are insightful:

Mr. Alderman Waithman observed, that the committee could not suffer its dignity to be trifled with in this way. He would appeal to the committee whether this man's answers could be believed. Something ought to be done to support the dignity of the House, which ought not to be trifled with in this manner. He should move, that the witness had been guilty of gross prevarication.

Mr. Baring asked, how, if the inquisitorial power of the House was to be exercised, that power could ever be exercised if it was treated in this manner? One phrase was perpetually in this man's mouth...Here was a man...who had entertained the committee for an hour and a half, with the same answer. He had been guilty, in his opinion, of gross prevarication.

Mr. Peel thought it doubtful whether the witness had been guilty of prevarication; it seemed a wilful suppression of the truth.

The Attorney General agreed, that the conduct of the witness did not amount to gross prevarication, although it was evidently a wilful suppression of truth.

Mr. Wynn confessed that he did not know what prevarication was, if the witness had not been guilty of it.

In the end, the House adopted a resolution that Mr. Fox “has attempted to defeat the investigation of the committee, by wilfully suppressing the truth.”

In addition to misleading, prevaricating or wilfully suppressing the truth, the United Kingdom committee has even called out dissembling evidence from a member of Parliament as concerning. I do have a citation for that. It is December 1996 first report in the U.K. House of Commons from the former Committee on Standards and Privileges, at pages 37 and 38.

I will move past those quotations and move on to say that the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth was quite clearly dodging and weaving in her evidence at committee, desperate to avoid giving answers. She was, to borrow the Canadian Oxford Dictionary definition, speaking evasively.

Normally we are used to answers which split hairs and where words are chosen carefully that can be understood sometimes, but here we are confronted by a ministerial witness who thought she was in question period and could just give answers to whatever question she wished would have been asked.

In conclusion on this point, it is my respectful submission that the minister's evidence was, as reported by the ethics committee's second report, misleading or prevaricating and, therefore, constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I greatly appreciate the contribution the hon. member made toward his question of privilege. As indicated earlier, with respect to the other information that was provided during the earlier question of privilege when he also put his point forward, we will take all under advisement. We will get back to the House to determine if this is a prima facie case. If so, the hon. member will be able to present more on that decision.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Transport; the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Justice.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to inform the House that the NDP reserves the right to intervene on the current question of privilege at a later date.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am also interested in the possibility of responding to the question of privilege. I would like to go over what the member has said. A great deal has been said by the member throughout the day. I will do my best and try to get back to him no later than Thursday next week, if at all possible.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, sometimes we rise on a point of order to thank staff. I just want to thank the member's staff for the incredible work they put into preparing this. There were people behind the scenes doing that and I thank them.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑30 laid the foundation for an undertaking that Quebeckers, in a rare show of unanimity, opposed. That is why I am pleased to say that I am very happy about a major victory won by my party, the Bloc Québécois, and by Quebec.

Bill C‑30 would have renewed and even significantly increased the budget for the Canadian Securities Transition Office to maintain it and accelerate its work. The government wanted to spend $120 million on it or even more if Parliament voted to do so in an appropriation act. Fortunately, thanks to my colleague's tireless work, the Standing Committee on Finance listened to reason and agreed to our demand to cut that clause from the bill and cut funding for the organization, whose raison d'être was centralization.

I would note that the office was created in 2009 to set up a single securities regulator in Toronto for the whole country. If the plan were to come to fruition, regulation of the entire financial sector would have been concentrated in Toronto. We are fiercely opposed to that because it is a heinous attack on our ability to keep our head offices and businesses viable here.

Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues from all parties in the House to uphold the amendment adopted by the committee, which will put an end, once and for all, to this harmful bill to strip Quebec, the provinces and the territories. If the amendment stands, the office should close its doors in the next few months and bring its centralizing mandate to an end. That is what the committee democratically recommended, and the government must respect its will. It must also respect the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec, which called on Ottawa four times to abandon another such attempt to interfere.

I also want to again point out that this bill generated an incredible response, as stakeholders from all sectors rallied in a seldom seen show of unity and spoke with one strong voice to oppose it. All political parties in the National Assembly and stakeholders in the business community, financial sector and labour-sponsored funds condemned it, and with good reason. It is rare for all these people to be of the same mind.

Once again Ottawa is sticking its nose where it does not belong despite many Supreme Court rulings confirming that securities are not a federal jurisdiction. My colleagues across the way might say that they got the green light to interfere in this area in 2018. I would remind them that this authorization was subject to conditions: not to act unilaterally, co‑operate with the provinces, and be limited to systemic risk analysis and management.

If every single political and economic actor agrees, that is mainly because this is a fight between Bay Street and Quebec. I hope members will pardon my concern, but the plan for this Canadian body was tailor-made for the small window that the Supreme Court opened to the federal government. Even assuming that the federal government respects the conditions that were imposed, the result is nonetheless the creation of a single securities commission and therefore the marginalization of Quebec's financial position.

Montreal is the 13th-largest financial centre in the world. Our financial sector is vibrant and represents 150,000 jobs in Quebec. It contributes up to $20 billion to Canada's GDP. Installing a Canada-wide securities regulator in Toronto would inevitably cause a migration of regulatory activities out of Quebec. Quebec's current securities regulator is strong and represents a pool of qualified labour and good jobs, but it is especially vital to the operations of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses.

It is a well-known fact that businesses concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their head offices are located. The Task Force on the Protection of Québec Businesses estimates that the 578 head offices in Quebec represent 50,000 jobs with a salary that is twice as high as the Quebec average in addition to 20,000 other jobs at specialized service providers such as accounting, legal, financial or computer services.

These head offices could end up in Ontario if the Canada-wide commission is established, and then Quebec will become a subsidiary economy, a branch plant economy, or in other words, a less innovative economy with limited growth. This centralization would make it complicated for businesses to get access to capital.

Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables businesses to access the capital they need to support investment and growth across Quebec.

This potential exodus of head offices would affect all sectors of our economy, not just big business, since Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, unlike foreign companies in Quebec, which tend to rely more on globalized supply chains.

This will have a major, even devastating, impact on our network of SMEs, which is at the heart of our economy and upon which the vitality of our regions depends. The current health crisis has shown how dependence on globalized supply chains can have disastrous consequences that make us dependent on other countries.

The government has the duty to protect SMEs in Quebec and Canada, and the Bloc Québécois will be there to remind it of that. We are very satisfied that we managed to nip this harmful plan to centralize in the bud by removing the controversial clause from Bill C-30. I again urge my colleagues to respect the will of the Standing Committee on Finance and keep the proposed amendment.

In closing, I would like to reassure my fellow Quebeckers who are opposed to this plan that, as long as it has not been officially abandoned, we will continue to fight against this plan, which benefits Ontario to the detriment of Quebec. If the government tries to bring back the clause that was taken out at report stage, we will challenge it. We will strongly oppose it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this particular bill for the budget 2021 implementation I believe is a continuation of a commitment the Prime Minister gave to all Canadians last year, and that was to be there in a very real and tangible way—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe there is a point of order.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, maybe it is just me, but even though I have my earpiece set to “French”, there is no interpretation, so I could not understand my hon. colleague's message.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to restart his question.

We will restart the time on the question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation bill is a continuation of the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians last year when he said we would be there in a very real and tangible way. We created programs to put disposable income in the pockets of Canadians and to support small businesses from coast to coast to coast. The budget implementation bill continues a lot of those programs.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we see the budget implementation bill pass, specifically to deal with the continuing pandemic?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary.

As I am sure he is aware, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-30. In my presentation, I decided to focus on something that seems eminently dangerous, and I do not regret doing so.

As for the rest, since there are more pros than cons overall, the Bloc supports it. Of course, the support programs for small businesses, for example, must be renewed.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this pandemic has really highlighted a lot of places where our supports for Canadians have been very thin. One thing it has shown is how our medical care system has been eroded over the years as federal government supports to the provinces have gone down.

Would the member be willing to agree with the NDP that we need to increase those transfer payments for our health care system?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

As he knows, the Bloc Québécois has called for unconditional increases in health transfers time and time again, even before this pandemic. This was an urgent, necessary requirement long before this pandemic, because our population is aging, which is causing health care costs to skyrocket.

The burden is on the provinces to hire more doctors, nurses and orderlies, but the money is staying in Ottawa, which goes against the Canadian legislation governing health transfers.

The Bloc Québécois fully supports increasing transfers, provided that this is done without conditions and therefore without further centralization. This is of course partly our money. It is not a gift to Quebec and the provinces. We are paying for it as taxpayers in each province.

I think my colleague is aware of our position, which is that we need a clear, strong and substantial increase in transfers for health care systems, with no strings attached.