Finance Committee on Feb. 24th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Brison.

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

I certainly recognize—we all recognize—the political urgency in the government's avoidance of talking about the economy in recent weeks.

Beyond that, we will support this motion, with reservations. We recognize the importance of studying terrorist financing, and FINTRAC falls under the Department of Finance, but this study ought to be conducted by a parliamentary intelligence and security committee, the kind of committee that exists in the other Five Eyes countries. In Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., and the United States there is congressional or parliamentary oversight. These committees are better able to study terrorist financing than our finance committee, in part because members have a heightened level of security clearance and expertise to delve into the issues.

I'll give you an example of why security clearance is required and important, as we're studying FINTRAC and its efficacy around terrorist financing. FINTRAC uses very specific algorithms to identify suspicious transactions. These are highly secret. As the finance committee, we will be able to scratch the surface, but that's about it, because we don't have the same security clearance that parliamentarians or members of Congress have on their security committees in other countries. For the life of me, I don't understand why the government is resisting the same kind of parliamentary oversight of security that our international coalition partners in the Five Eyes have implemented.

Since there is no security and intelligence committee of Parliament in Canada, we can proceed as a finance committee with this study. But let's be clear: it is an imperfect situation, which will yield a study that does not provide as much information or as much clarity as one conducted by a true parliamentary intelligence and security committee, the kind we have been calling for and would put in place as a Liberal government in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Monsieur Côté, s'il vous plaît.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that I am always shocked to see that everything boils down to a very partisan game. My colleagues opposite are looking elsewhere and are busy with their cellphones instead of listening to what the opposition has to say.

The study Mr. Saxton proposed is important, but I will turn the question back to him. Why are all opposition proposals dismissed out of hand by the Conservatives? That's particularly absurd. We negotiate in good faith, but we are refused requests that are perfectly reasonable and, most importantly, entirely in the public interest. That's the substance of the problem, be it in the Standing Committee on Finance, in other committees, or as part of House business.

I have no problem with supporting this motion, quite the contrary. However, will our work always be a one-way street? Will the government representatives be open to considering the NDP's proposals during that study? Will we always have the will of the government imposed upon us, with its choice of study topics that don't reflect the problems business owners, families, workers and retirees deal with on a daily basis?

Canadians are aging. Fluctuations in oil prices and currency are leading to changes in the price of a number of daily necessities that have nothing to do with the higher income of retirees.

I don't understand why we are still working in a potential climate of free-for-all, when we could reach a consensus and come up with negotiated solutions much more easily.

I am asking Mr. Saxton to tell me when he will stop spitting in our face when we put forward perfectly reasonable and fundamental proposals for all Canadians, as is potentially the case with the notice in question. I hope that the study will be conducted under proper conditions and that we won't end up on a one-way street where the government's election platform would be imposed on us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Dionne Labelle, go ahead.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Although I have reread the motion, I cannot make sense of it. I would like Mr. Saxton to explain to me what it is he wants to study. He is proposing a study of the cost, economic impact, frequency and best practices to address the issue of terrorist financing. So we will be studying the cost of terrorist financing in Canada. Will we be studying the cost of terrorist financing or the cost of the impact terrorism has in Canada? I'm having a hard time grasping the nature of the motion.

Mr. Saxton, can you tell me a bit more about the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank Monsieur Dionne Labelle for that question.

As my colleague may recognize, in order for terrorist organizations to survive and continue, they need to be financed on a regular basis. Our concern, and the concern of many Canadians along with the international community, is that terrorist organizations are taking advantage of such organizations as charities and taking advantage of virtual currencies like Bitcoin in order to launder money and to funnel funds to their bank accounts in other countries. Obviously if we're in a position where we can stop this from happening, then that is a significant step forward in our fight against international terrorism.

These are just some of the issues that come up. I'm sure many other issues will come up as we have our witnesses describe their concerns, but this is a big topic. Financial institutions have put in place controls as well, but we have to find out whether those controls are actually working, because terrorist organizations are getting funding. They are perpetuating themselves and growing as a result of financing. We need to find out where that financing is coming from and stop it as much as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Back to Monsieur Dionne Labelle.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I hear what you are saying, but you have not answered my question regarding the motion's wording.

The motion talks about undertaking a study of costs, but what costs are those? It talks about terrorist financing in Canada. I'm not sure what kind of a revelation you are expecting here, in the Standing Committee on Finance, but anything that has to do with the illicit financing of terrorism in Canada must be handled by a public safety committee. It's a matter of conducting a study on the economic impact of terrorism, but I think your motion is poorly drafted to begin with. In it, you say you want to assess the impact of the cost of terrorism in Canada, but the motion is poorly worded in its current form.

I don't think this kind of a study will lead to any revelations. We can look at investigation results, but the nature of those investigations is such that it's clear they will not be made public in committee proceedings. That is actually part of CSIS research efforts. I don't see what we could learn here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Côté, over to you.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I dislike the fact that the representatives of the party in power are once more using their majority to refuse to answer essential questions.

It's clear that everyone agrees with moving this motion ahead and undertaking this study. But could you tell me how much time we will dedicate to it and what kind of a limit we will set?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's up to the committee how many meetings it wants to have. If the motion passes, what we will endeavour to do as the chair and clerk, obviously, is ask all the members for suggestions in terms of witnesses, and from there we put the study together. It's up to the committee how many meetings it wants to spend on this if it passes.

Mr. Saxton, go ahead on that point.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thanks, Chair. I just want to respond briefly to Monsieur Dionne Labelle's question regarding the cost. Obviously there is social cost, and there is economic cost. I'll just give you one example. If terrorists are using charities as a vehicle to funnel money to their sources, charities issue tax receipts. For example, if a charity is being used by a terrorist organization and is issuing tax receipts, there is a very clear economic cost to the Canadian government, because we are actually giving a tax break to the financing of terrorist organizations. That's just one example of a potential economic cost of financing terrorist organizations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Can we go to the vote on this?

Mr. Côté, go ahead.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think we should dedicate a maximum of four meetings to this study.

So that's my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Does the committee want to identify a number of meetings now? Is that an amendment to the motion?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The original motion reads as follows:

That the Committee, at the request of the Minister of Finance, undertake a study of the costs, economic impact, frequency and best practices to address the issue of terrorist financing both here in Canada and abroad.

I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “Canada and abroad” the following: “for the duration of four (4) meetings”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll take the vote on the amendment then.

(Amendment negatived)

We'll vote on the main motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.