This raises all kinds of other questions for me, which I don't know whether we can cover in this conversation, but I think, from what the clerk just said, there was precedent for the 106(4) to be called as a subsequently enumerated meeting even while a suspended meeting was in place. Because of that precedent, they actually sent out a notice of meeting. I have, somewhere in my inbox, a notice of meeting for meeting number 143. Because we signed onto a 106(4) letter that met the standards of that standing order—because there were enough members who signed up from more than one political party—that notice of meeting was withdrawn. I've never seen that in the time I've been here, that a notice of meeting has been withdrawn and then replaced with a notice of another meeting. From what the clerk explained, it's because the public servants who form what he called the committees directorate decided they would rather see the committee make those decisions, which is fair enough.
My point is exactly that. Here we have a story that has just been broken about TD Bank in the U.S. having a huge problem with money laundering. We're seven months out from the finance minister, to whom Mr. Turnbull is actually the parliamentary secretary, requesting that we review that legislation, and we had the 106(4).
Even with all of that, Mr. Chair, when I moved that we do exactly what the clerk thought the committee could consider doing—I moved that in that meeting, and you'll see it when you review the tape—which was to proceed to consider the 106(4), every Liberal and Mr. Davis voted against it. I find it really astounding that they could say on the one hand that they care about money laundering, but also that we should have a look at the BIA—which isn't even before us at this committee but is actually in the House—and they won't take the opportunity to have one meeting to talk about money laundering.
However, that being said, just for the folks watching, the next paragraphs state the following:
iii. that any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 30th, 2024;
iv. clause-by-clause consideration of the bill start no later than 12:00 PM EST on June 3rd, 2024, and that the Chair be empowered to set up extended hours and request additional House resources on that day; if the Committee has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 11:00 AM on May 28th, 2024, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary...
And so on and so forth.
I don't think I need to read the last couple of provisions of it, but I do want to stay on the subamendment, Mr. Chair. I want to talk about the part of the subamendment that asks about hearing from Mark Carney. I don't want to hear the Liberals and the NDP say that he shouldn't come, that he is a private citizen and we shouldn't subpoena him or that there is no subpoena in here. There is no subpoena. It says that we dedicate a meeting to hear from him for three hours, so it's just disinformation to say that we're trying to subpoena Mr. Carney.
He is a private citizen, but he is the most public private citizen in the country, I would have to say. In fact, I think he is even out there. I see he is going to be raising money with Bonnie Crombie at a provincial Liberal Party fundraiser on June 11, 2024, on King Street in Toronto. It wouldn't surprise me if he did a fundraiser to raise money for the federal party, so he's out there. Not only is he doing that, but he actually appeared at the Senate banking committee, so it's not as though he's avoiding Parliament. He came to Parliament.
In fact, there were some very interesting questions and responses in that meeting. It's not quite a podcast, but there's actually a transcript from the Senate banking committee. I thought I would read into the record the transcript from the Senate banking committee because, since Mr. Carney isn't here, at least this committee can hear from him based on the words that he spoke in the Senate banking committee.
I'll start with Senator Housakos. His question was, “Mr. Carney, do you support Justin Trudeau's carbon tax, a carbon tax that seven out of ten premiers and the vast majority of Canadians feel is pummelling the working class from coast to coast to coast?”
Mr. Carney said, “I'd say the following, to go directly to the issues that we're discussing here today, as I said in my opening comments, the power of the financial sector, a financial sector that has disclosure, or a financial sector that has transition plans, a financial sector and an economy that benefits from a carbon credit market is that it pulls forward adjustment. It finances solutions. That's the core of it. It manages risks, helps workers find new and better employment.
“Where it's most powerful is where there is credible and predictable climate policy. The policy can be well into the future, but if it's credible, then the adjustment starts today and that's how we build a better economy.
“What's critical in policy—and there are a lot of different aspects to climate policy. There are regulations, subsidies, tax credits, carbon pricing and carbon credits, but what's critical, in my view, as we're building this financial system that has this power to find solutions for Canadians, is that if something is going to be changed, then something at least as good is put in its place.
“Ideally, if you are going to change something, you put in place something better that still has that credibility and predictability that has the power that drives investment. We're in a position right now where we need $2 trillion of investment at the core of the economy”.
Now, I didn't hear an answer to Mr. Housakos' question. Good on Senator Housakos, he actually followed up and said, “Mr. Carney, can you answer the question? Are you in favour of Justin Trudeau's carbon tax? A yes or a no will suffice.”
When Mr. Carney begins, “The point that I'm making”, Senator Housakos interjects, “I didn't hear a yes or a no.”
Mr. Carney is not answering the question. I mean, here he's literally avoiding the question. He's saying, “This is the joy of being a witness. You get to say what you think”.
This is a great example as to why he should come here, because if he's going to continue to run to be the next leader of the Liberal Party, and you know, it's clear. I said this before, it's clear. It's not clear he wants to axe the tax, but he clearly wants to axe the Prime Minister.
He can't answer a simple question from Senator Housakos, so Senator Housakos continues. He says, “And the joy of being a senator is that we get to ask the question.
“Are you in favour of Justin Trudeau's carbon tax? Because to your point, Canada right now has fallen to sixty-second out of sixty-seven countries in the climate change index.
“I ask the question again: Is the carbon tax working, and are you in favour of Justin Trudeau's carbon tax?”
Mr. Carney says, “It's important that we have a forward-looking financial system that has information to manage it and that we have credible and predictable climate policy.”
Again, it's painful to read this, actually. Mr. Carney is just avoiding this question, which is such an important question. If he's going to be in political life, he's got to be able to answer this question and he's not answering it.
Now, he does get a little closer to answering it, and Senator Martin did a good job. She was up next, and she said, “I wanted to go back to my colleague's question about whether you are for or against the carbon tax. I didn't hear a clear answer.”
Mr. Carney says, “I think it served a purpose up until now.”
Wow, that's interesting. Again, it opens up a lot of questions. What does he mean? Does he mean we should keep it? Does he mean it needs to be changed? Does he mean it needs to be scrapped? We don't know, but he obviously has opinions on it. He's just not being very up front about what those opinions are.
He says, “I think one can always look for better solutions, and as a country, we should always be open to better solutions for that.
“But the bar for those solutions—”.
Senator Martin says, “Sorry, Mr. Carney. I think that was a yes, but I will move on to my next question.”
Mr. Carney says, “I said it's been useful up until now. That's what I said.”
Senator Martin says, “Yes, thank you.”
There's a little bit more in the transcript that's not related specifically to the carbon tax. I won't belabour my colleagues with that.
I think I'm ready to pass the mic on to the next speaker, Mr. Chair.
