Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Dzerowicz, you can continue with—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Relevance is my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I heard the name Mark Carney a number of times. There is relevance to what is being said, and there is a lot of latitude on this committee.

MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Yes, we're talking about the budget implementation act, which is great.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, could I speak briefly on the point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, go ahead, MP Davies, on the point of order.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think this will be helpful for all members, particularly as people sub in and out.

The subamendment is about adding the words “the week of the 28th one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister of Finance for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hear from Mark Carney for three hours” and asks that the clause-by-clause not be completed. It's not restricted to Mark Carney. Mr. Morantz's subamendment also calls the minister here. If the subject is about calling the minister here, that opens up a whole range of issues. These would be open for my friend Ms. Dzerowicz to talk about, if she wants to. It's not limited to Mr. Carney.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

MP Dzerowicz, you may continue.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm ready to vote on that subamendment any time the Conservatives would like to allow us to vote on it. We're happy to do so.

I was talking about small businesses because I know they're anxious for any type of support from our federal government. We've already provided them with a number of supports. Many of them that I talked to are very happy that our federal government has negotiated with Visa and Mastercard. Starting this September, they will be getting a 27% reduction in the credit card fees they're paying to Visa and Mastercard.

When I tell them about the Canada carbon rebate, they're very happy to hear about it. What's also great, as many people might not know, is that we're proposing that this rebate be retroactive for up to three years. That is a game-changer for a lot of small businesses, and I will tell you that any small businesses listening right now are saying to get on with it: “Stop wasting time, finance committee. Get on with passing Bill C-69 because we need that money. We need to invest back into our businesses, back into our local economies.”

We also have some additional support and additional information around the clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. This builds on the investment tax credits that we had in the fall economic statement.

One of the key messages we heard from industry, which I would say was unanimous, was to get going on the investment tax credits. Businesses need reliability. They need an idea about when these tax credits will be available or they will not be able to move forward on planning—planning for today, planning for tomorrow, planning for jobs and planning for how they can ensure their companies are competitive and prosperous, both today and tomorrow. If we heard through the fall economic statement that the timeline and implementation were critical and urgent, then I bet they would say the same about the clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. However, to be honest, I would prefer to hear from them directly, and my biggest fear is that we'll continue to waste time, because the Conservatives are forcing us to have this filibuster, and we won't hear from any of the witnesses. I would love to hear directly from witnesses.

I also want to relate to this committee, and remind particularly my Conservative friends, what else we are holding up right now that would be very helpful to all Canadians. Indeed, we have an affordability crisis in our country after a massive global pandemic and subsequent inflation, and a lot of transitions are happening in our world. I'm very proud that in this budget we have introduced a number of measures that are going to be very helpful to Canadians.

What's been mentioned before is the national school food program. There's rarely a day in the House of Commons that a Conservative doesn't talk about how there are families and kids who are struggling. We have a very direct additional measure that we are planning to put in place through the national school food program. I can tell you that it is absolutely lauded unanimously as a positive program. It has been much asked for by Canadians of all political stripes right across the country. By us filibustering, by us not moving forward on Bill C-69, we are holding up the implementation of the national school food program.

It isn't just the school food program that we think is going to help support Canadians. It will be the continued implementation of the national child care program, the dental care program, phase 1 of our pharmacare program and phase 1 of our disability tax credit. The disability tax credit, which is in phase 1, and phase 1 of our pharmacare program are also being held up by us not moving forward with Bill C-69 and discussions here at the finance committee.

Regarding the student loan forgiveness program, there are a number of measures in Bill C-69 that are going to provide some additional supports to students. Specifically, what Bill C-69 has, which I'm really happy about, is Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses. Essentially what we're trying to do is provide a student loan forgiveness program to health care professionals if they work in a designated or underserved rural or remote community. The benefits act as an incentive to graduates who are paying back their federal student loans to work in underserved communities that have challenges accessing care services.

Too many Canadians do not have access to primary care in this country, and we desperately need to provide incentives for nurses and doctors to go into rural and hard-to-serve communities across this country. By not moving forward with Bill C-69, that is another big program that we are slowing down and stopping from being implemented that will help Canadians, particularly in rural and hard-to-serve communities.

On the Canada Education Savings Act, many of us who come from immigrant families know—and I think that's all of us in some generation—that education is the salvation to create better lives for ourselves and for our families moving forward. I was really pleased to see that we have made some adjustments to the Canada Education Savings Act. Essentially what we are proposing in Bill C-69 is automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond, which I think is really fantastic. We're trying to make sure that children are automatically enrolled in the Canada learning bond. It is a way for us to help families save for their children's education, and that really bodes well for Canada's economic prosperity both now and moving forward.

I could go through many other sections, but I'm going to go through one other one: “Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, Sanctions Evasion and Other Measures”.

One thing that I've been very disappointed in our Conservative colleagues about is that they seem to give the impression that our federal government does not care about money laundering or about terrorist financing. Indeed, we have been investing in anti-money laundering heavily since 2017 in subsequent budgets, and we've taken a number of steps. I'll be reading through the steps we've taken because I think they're important.

There seemed to be a concern from the Conservatives that we're not doing very much and that whatever we're doing is not very effective. I'd like to say to my Conservative friends that not only have we done quite a bit—and I think they'll be very proud to hear the list of all the things we are doing—but there's a significant section on money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other measures in Bill C-69. They continue to force us to do this filibuster, which I do not want to be a part of. I would rather hear from witnesses. I would rather be considering the different sections of the the budget implementation act, and I would rather be asking questions that would make sure this budget is accountable and responsible to Canadians.

I'll read some key sections, just because I think they are relevant.

What we indicate as part of the budget implementation act is that since 2017, our government has undertaken significant work to crack down on financial crime. We've invested close to $320 million since 2019 to strengthen compliance, financial intelligence, information sharing and investigative capacity to support money laundering investigations. We are creating new integrated money laundering investigative teams in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, which convene experts to advance investigations into money laundering, supported by dedicated forensic accounting experts. We launched a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry for federal corporations. It was launched this year, on January 22, 2024. Our government continues to call upon provinces and territories to advance a pan-Canadian approach to beneficial ownership transparency.

We're modernizing Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies, vulnerable sectors and growing risks such as sanctions evasion. We're also establishing public-private partnerships with the financial sector, which are improving the detection and disruption of profit-oriented crimes, including human trafficking, online child sexual exploitation and fentanyl tracking.

In federal budget 2024—and it's covered by the budget implementation act—we take further action to protect Canadians from financial crime. Here's what we're doing.

In budget 2024, the government intends to introduce legislative amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act—the PCMLTFA—the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Proposed amendments to the PCMLTFA will enhance the ability of reporting entities under the PCMLTFA to share information with each other to detect and deter money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion, while maintaining privacy protections for personal information including an oversight role for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner under regulations.

We're also proposing, in budget 2024 and under Bill C-69, to permit the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support efforts to seize property linked to unlawful activity, and permit Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada's citizenship process. We'll enable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulatory obligations to cover factoring companies, cheque-cashing businesses, and leasing and finance companies to close a loophole and level the playing field across businesses providing financial services. We will also allow FINTRAC to publicize more information around violations of obligations under the PCMLTFA when issuing administrative monetary penalties to strengthen transparency and compliance, and we'll make technical amendments to close loopholes and correct inconsistencies.

Proposed amendments to the Criminal Code include the following: allowing courts to issue an order to require a financial institution to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence; and allowing courts to issue a repeating production order to authorize law enforcement to obtain ongoing, specific information on activity in an account or multiple accounts connected to a person of interest in a criminal investigation.

We're also proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act, which will ensure Canada Revenue Agency officials who carry out criminal investigations are authorized to seek general warrants through court applications, thereby modernizing and simplifying evidence-gathering processes and helping to fight tax evasion and other financial crimes. In addition, through our Canada financial crimes agency, in budget 2024 we're proposing to provide $1.7 million over two years, starting this year, 2024-25, to the Department of Finance to finalize the design and legal framework for the CFCA.

Just because I don't want the Conservatives to think we're not trying to implement as many measures as possible to tackle what we all know is a really serious issue in Canada—although I'd say this is an equally serious issue around the world—in addition to that, we also have a number of measures to fight trade-based fraud and money laundering. What we plan on doing in the budget is build on the work that was already proposed in the 2023 fall economics statement, which announced enhancements to the Canada Border Services Agency's authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat trade-based financial crime, with the intent to create a trade transparency unit. Building on this work, we're providing an additional $29.9 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $5.1 million in remaining amortization and $4.2 million ongoing, for the Canada Border Services Agency to support the implementation of its new authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat financial crime and strengthen, for our allies, efforts to combat international financial crime. Furthermore, we're continuing to modernize our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies.

What we're doing in this budget is proposing to introduce amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, with consequential and coordinating amendments to other statutes, to strengthen the supervision, enforcement and information-sharing tools of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework.

I know we had a discussion on Friday about the importance of us spending a number of sessions looking specifically at anti-money laundering and what more we could be doing. There are some national examples that the Conservatives wanted us to focus on. I want Canadians and anybody who's listening to know that, indeed, we take this seriously.

Since 2017, we have been investing very heavily in this area. We've been working with international bodies to make sure that we're coordinating our efforts on this. In addition, in this budget and the budget implementation act, we're introducing a significant number of measures that will be very helpful in tackling money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other measures. I know that's important not only to us, but to all those within our Parliament.

I'll mention two other things.

I always say to Mr. Davies that he steals all my lines, because there are a lot of things I want to say, and he's often one step ahead of me in saying them. They really are part of my notes.

This is my fourth year on this committee. I'm very privileged to be part of it. Last year, we had 60 hours of filibustering and it was very painful. The only people who didn't benefit from it was Canadians. To be honest, we as a committee also didn't benefit, because we didn't hear from witnesses. I think we really had an opportunity to listen to witnesses.

We have an opportunity now to listen to witnesses. There's still some time left. If we decide we're going to vote on this programming motion and the amendments that are part of it, we might get to a few days of witnesses to hear from them, particularly on key sections that really concern us. They can make very thoughtful suggestions about ways we could strengthen Bill C‑69.

I predict what's going to happen when we get to a point where Bill C‑69 is before this committee is that the Conservatives will say we have no time to hear from witnesses and that the Liberals are really awful because we're trying to pass this legislation really quickly. I want to say to all Conservatives that there is time right now—not a lot, but maybe some time—for us to listen to witnesses and hear from them and to ask questions of our officials. There is time to give this bill, which is a significant piece of legislation with a lot of really outstanding measures for Canadians, the real consideration and review that Canadians expect us to do as part of our jobs and as part of this committee.

This is the final point I'll make, and Mr. Davies also mentioned it. Part of what I'm starting to hear from the Conservatives in the House, and I hear it sometimes at this committee, is that it's almost as though we want to prove that Parliament isn't working. We want to prove that committees aren't working. To them, our House of Commons—everything—is broken. However, I think what can happen is that we actually break things. We make it seem like things are broken when they're really not broken.

We have an opportunity to do the job that Canadians have elected us to do. I would encourage Conservatives to allow us to get to a vote on the amendments before us and the original programming motion before us. Allow us to do a few meetings where we have some witnesses, and allow us to move forward and hopefully pass Bill C-69, pass the budget that we know will have tremendous benefits for many Canadians and that has a tremendous number of sections that set our economy up for prosperity both today and tomorrow.

Our committees can function better. I would say this to all of us: Let's do the work that Canadians expect us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

I have a number of MPs on the list for this debate: MP Jivani, MP Hallan, MP Turnbull, MP Thompson and MP Goodridge.

MP Jivani.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to very specifically speak to the part of the motion asking for the finance minister, our Deputy Prime Minister, to appear before the committee for a full two-hour meeting and, in particular, to why I think that's very important for the sake of ministerial accountability.

I certainly don't have the amount of experience of my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz; I don't have four years of service under my belt yet. I've been here for less than two months. I think it would be fair to observe that it is very hard to get a straight answer out of a lot of the ministers in this government in the House of Commons. You sit there, and for 35 seconds you have a chance to ask a question, and then for the next 35 seconds you rarely get an answer to the question that you've asked. It's a pretty consistent theme. In fact, it happened for an entire hour today. The idea that it is important for the finance minister, our Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, to appear before this committee for a full meeting and answer questions presents hope and opportunity that perhaps we can get some questions answered about this budget.

I find it interesting that for weeks now, we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister and this Liberal government run around the country claiming that this budget is achieving generational fairness. It's been emphasized over and over again, with them pleading to millennials and gen z that somehow this budget is a magic recipe for fairness for a generation failed by this government for nine years. I think there are some deserving questions coming out of that.

For example, how exactly is a high-deficit budget good for young Canadians? It just amounts to kicking the can down the road, with young people paying the bill for the Liberal government's current expensive photo ops and high-priced broken promises. I don't know how anyone would call that generational fairness. Then there's the fact that the budget continues to make promises about affordable housing for young people after nine years of those very same promises leading us nowhere but to double mortgage payments and double rental payments.

There is an opportunity for a two-hour meeting where the Deputy Prime Minister may have to answer questions about this, and it seems like that would be in the best interests of Canada. It seems to me that Canadians deserve that, at least. If you're going to make these bold, lofty promises despite all the evidence to the contrary, there may be some ministerial accountability built into that.

However, there are more reasons for the Deputy Prime Minister to appear and answer questions before this committee. This budget continues to push a regressive carbon tax onto the Canadian people, and let me be very clear when I say that. This is absolutely a regressive tax from a supposedly progressive government. The Liberal carbon tax continues to punish hard-working families by making life more expensive. Gas, food and everything that a person needs to survive and thrive in this country are becoming more expensive.

I appreciate that Deputy Prime Minister Freeland may not fully understand how much this hurts hard-working families. After all, it was only recently that she suggested a solution to the cost of living crisis would be that everyone just adopt her lifestyle of taking bicycles and public transit everywhere. Well, most people don't live in downtown Toronto. In fact, most families in this country need a car to get to work or school and function in a basic manner. It is very clear that a tax that punishes those very necessary activities can be considered nothing but regressive, and the Deputy Prime Minister should answer questions about that.

Why would a government that claims to be progressive and makes a big show and dance in the House of Commons all the time about caring for young people be hitching its wagon to a regressive policy that, in fact, punishes working-class and middle-class families? To put into perspective what the continued carbon tax in this budget is doing to people in this country, I would like to draw attention to the 2023 report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which details that the carbon tax will cost the average Ontario family $592 this coming summer alone from Victoria Day to Labour Day.

Again, I think many Canadians may be concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland does not appreciate how much money this means to most families, but the reality is that it means a lot. This is an issue that deserves a fulsome conversation and a full meeting at which the finance minister answers questions from the finance committee.

The Liberal elite bubble in Ottawa may not appreciate $592 over the summer, maybe because the leader of the party lives off a trust fund. I don't know. Maybe for him it's pocket money; he finds that in the middle of his couch, perhaps. However, to most Canadians, it's a pretty big deal. It could be the difference between being able to pay their bills in a given month or over the course of the entire summer and perhaps going into debt.

Last summer, the insolvency firm MNP LTD conducted a survey of Canadians, and most Canadians who responded to that survey—52%—said they are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills at the end of the month due to higher interest rates and a rising cost of living. Those statistics come from Canadians who completed the MNP survey, not from billionaires like Warren Buffett or friends of the Liberal Party with Ph.D.s who the Liberal Party likes to cite as evidence that their carbon tax economy is good for the Canadian people. Unsurprisingly, the Canadian people have a very different perspective on the economy than Warren Buffett does.

If most Canadians say that they are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every month, the cost of the carbon tax this summer—$592—is actually a big deal. For that majority of Canadians, $592 could help pay their bills for two or three months. The carbon tax is just taking money away from Canadians this summer and is having real-world consequences that the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland should address before this committee.

While I'm here and have the chance to speak, I'd also like to draw attention to some local issues. My home community of Durham is home to many families that feel the economic pressure the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland has created with inflationary spending and a regressive carbon tax. According to Durham region's health department, 16.4% of households in the Durham region are considered food insecure. In short, that means over 16% of households in the Durham region report they are worried that the food they have in their house will run out, that they will have to compromise on the type or the amount of food they eat, or that they will have to skip meals. This is a very real problem attributable to both food inflation and the rising cost of basic living.

I must say that it is a real shame that the Liberal MP for Whitby, my neighbour to the west, continues to downplay this problem. Ryan Turnbull, the Liberal MP for Whitby—I'm sorry; I have to pause as I shudder—is the parliamentary secretary for the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland, and I have seen him personally over the last few weeks stand in the House of Commons and paint a false picture of the very serious economic problems impacting Canada, the Durham region and Whitby in particular.

This is relevant because Mr. Turnbull has put forward a way of measuring success and progress in the economy that the Deputy Prime Minister Freeland should probably answer to. Let me provide some examples.

Two weeks ago, the Liberal MP for Whitby, Mr. Turnbull—the Deputy Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary—stood in the House and cited Warren Buffett to explain that the Liberal carbon tax economy is going great. He said that Warren Buffett is not uncomfortable “putting [his] money into Canada”, quoting the American billionaire as if that's evidence that the government's inflationary spending is good for Canadians. Mr. Turnbull may believe that the measure of a healthy economy is Warren Buffett's point of view—

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

My understanding is that, as part of the subamendment, we're speaking about Mr. Carney coming to committee for three hours. Are we now expanding this, and is there another subamendment that we're going to move for Mr. Buffett? I'm a little uncertain, Chair, of what's happening.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I want to speak to that point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On MP Thompson's point of order, go ahead.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think it's very relevant. He did tie in what Mr. Turnbull has been saying about the carbon tax economy and Warren Buffett with Chrystia Freeland. I think that there is quite a bit of latitude that you granted others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Thompson and MP Hallan. I do ask for relevance and to keep it as tight as you can, but we do allow for latitude on committee.

MP Jivani.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to quote our colleague from the NDP who said calling the minister here opens up a range of issues. I would say this is within the range of issues.

Once again, as I was saying before I was interrupted, Mr. Turnbull, parliamentary secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, said two weeks ago in the House, when explaining the high cost of groceries, that Warren Buffet is not uncomfortable putting his money into Canada, quoting the American billionaire as if that's evidence the government's inflationary spending is good for Canadians.

This actually raises the question of how this government, how the parliamentary secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, how the Minister of Finance, is measuring what a successful and progressive economy looks like. Is it Warren Buffett's opinion? Is it the economic outlook of an American billionaire, or is it much more serious measures?

For example, there's increasing demand at food banks, which I would say is a much more serious measure of whether the carbon tax economy is actually good for Canada. It would be very important and I think helpful to the Canadian people when the Deputy Prime Minister is called before this committee to have a fulsome discussion of how exactly the economy is being measured, how exactly this government is determining that this is a good economy for the Canadian people.

On this idea of measuring the economy, how do we know that things are as bad as some would say they are? I do think that food bank demand is a very good measure. We have millions of Canadians accessing food banks, many of whom never accessed a food bank before. Again, I'd like to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, Mr. Turnbull, because on May 2, in Whitby, a new food bank opened up. It's a new food bank, an innovative model styled after a grocery store.

That occurred on May 2. On May 3, just the day after, Mr. Turnbull rose in the House defending the Deputy Prime Minister's policies, and I'm going to quote this because it is shocking stuff. He said, “I know that the member opposite feels that grocery prices are too high, and they have been, certainly. However, the CPI index has shown that food prices are stabilizing in our economy, which is good news for Canadians.”

There are a couple of important things here that the Deputy Prime Minister may want to respond to. First, is it good to stabilize high food prices? Most Canadians have made quite clear that we want grocery costs to go down, not to keep them high, as the parliamentary secretary to Chrystia Freeland would suggest. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. It sounds quite illogical and warrants some dialogue, some questions and some answers, some Q and A.

If these prices for food continue to stay high, as Mr. Turnbull is thrilled to report, the food bank lines in Whitby will continue to grow. The food bank lines in many other parts of Canada will continue to grow and that is not good news.

When we talk about ministerial accountability there are some very serious questions embedded in this. They are questions that warrant a fulsome two-hour meeting at least, to answer questions and to make clear to the people of Canada what exactly the measure is that this government is using when putting forward this year's budget. What exactly do they mean when they say this is good for Canadians? Is the measuring stick they're using just fundamentally broken, and is that why they're able to put this budget forward with such glee and enthusiasm?

Certainly the Deputy Prime Minister shall have to answer for this. Canadians want to know that the Liberal government actually understands the challenges before us, given the evidence that they do not. Making excuses for very serious economic problems in this country as Mr. Turnbull has done, and is busy doing, is not helping.

Fundamentally, it comes down to this question. Should the Deputy Prime Minister have to answer this committee's questions and stop running from accountability? I hope the committee's answer to that question is yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Jivani.

I have MP Hallan, MP Turnbull, MP Thompson and then MP Goodridge.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Jivani, for his very eloquent speech and recap of today's reality of what Canadians are facing after nine years of this Liberal-NDP government.

Other colleagues have tried to recap how we got here today, and it's important to find out why we are where we are today. Let's not forget that as a committee we tried to get Mark Carney to this committee. It was actually Mr. Davies who blocked that proposal, in whatever deal he brokered with the Liberals. We're just not sure yet, but whatever it was, it worked. Mr. Davies was the first to jump on that. He tried to block that, and he was successful. Let's turn to why we are where we are today.

This was the first time in my entire parliamentary experience I'd seen a parliamentary secretary, Mr. Turnbull, block the government's own legislation on Bill C-69. Let's not forget we had witnesses in this room, and Mr. Turnbull decided to table-drop a heavy-handed motion, which was not discussed beforehand. We know for a fact that the NDP got that motion the night before. The rest of us from the Conservative side and the Bloc side, as far as we know, did not get it, but Mr. Davies knew about it. They tried to use a heavy hand, as they always do. They have been doing that for the last nine years with their costly coalition. They've tried to stiff-arm us—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I tried this last Friday, but got an incredibly biased decision from the chair at that time.

There has been no coalition for nine years. You're allowed to have great latitude at this committee, but you're not allowed to rewrite history. Saying that the last nine years has been a coalition government is like saying the last nine years was an American Republican government. It's simply wrong.

I would ask my colleague to be factual. He can talk about the last two and a half years of having a confidence and supply agreement, but there was no coalition government between the Liberals and the NDP for the last nine years. You're not allowed to state outright falsehoods under the guise of parliamentary privilege. I would ask my colleague to withdraw that comment and stick to the truth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Hallan.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

On that point of order, Mr. Chair, I think my NDP colleague, Don Davies, needs to listen a bit better because I separated the two things.

In the ruling our hard-working clerk cleared up for us that there was a ruling made that it is very factual to say “Liberal-NDP government”. There was a ruling made in the House. Mr. Chair, you're more than welcome to have that same email forwarded to you. There was a ruling made in the House of Commons on May 7, 2024, where they pointed to a ruling from September 24, 2021, in regard to the same point of order that Mr. Davies brought up. It was about not being able to say “Liberal-NDP government”, but it was proven that we can.

I would refer him and you, Mr. Chair, to that ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for that MP Hallan and MP Davies.

I will put that to the side, but I will look into what you have said here on the record.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Continuing on, this costly coalition Liberal-NDP government, which I am allowed to say, blocked their own legislation. Let's not forget that, when those witnesses were here, we were hearing testimony. Mr. Turnbull, the parliamentary secretary, for the first time in the history that I've been here table-dropped a motion to block his party's own legislation on Bill C-69.

What would Chrystia Freeland think about that? Is it that maybe Mr. Turnbull supports Mark Carney in his bid to become Liberal leader? He recently tweeted him, which could be an endorsement, but we don't know. Maybe out of that he tried to trick Chrystia Freeland. We just don't know. That's why it's important for Mark Carney to be here and for Chrystia Freeland to be here at the same time.

Let's not forget that Don Davies and Ryan Turnbull came here at the same time. It seems like they already had an agenda preset before they got here and have been trying to stiff-arm and use a heavy hand since they got here.