Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Let's get back to MP Morantz, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I should be added to the list, though, regardless of whether or not I'm subbed in. I have a right to be added to the list, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll ask for the committee's consent to hear MP Genuis. Do we have consent? No.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You don't need the committee's consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We didn't find consent, so we're going to go to MP Morantz.

I've given you a ruling on that already, MP Genuis, here at the committee, to MP Viersen.

Go ahead, MP Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to take a step back, because I know there are many people watching this committee meeting right now across the country, and it may not be clear to them what it is we're talking about. We need to take a step back—it's been a few days that we've been trying to deal with this programming motion—and explain to those watching what it is we're doing here.

Right now, we're debating a subamendment that I put forward on a motion. Basically, what it says is that on the week of the 28th, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister of Finance for two hours, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from Mark Carney for three hours, and that clause-by-clause not begin until the aforementioned witnesses appear for the requested times.

Now, in order to understand what that means, we need to back up and look at the motion as a whole—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Chair. I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

He has been substituted.

MP Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Actually, I can raise a point of order, regardless of whether or not I'm subbed in. I would commend to you the reading of the rules.

Now that I am subbed in, regardless, it should not be a matter of controversy that I ask to be added to the list. Can you confirm that I've been added to the list? I know Mr. Baker wanted to prevent me from speaking, but alas, he will not be able to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You're on the list.

We'll go back to MP Morantz, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—and he will have to hear from me regardless.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Morantz has the floor.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

The motion as a whole reads.... I'll just go through it so that people watching will understand what we're doing. Basically, it was a Liberal motion to program out the rest of our meetings through to the end of this session, which is probably going to be around the third week of June. They put forward a motion that.... Ironically, this motion was given to Mr. Davies the night before it was introduced at committee but it was not given to Mr. Hallan, so it was a surprise to us when this motion was dropped.

In fact, it's interesting to hear the Liberals talk about hearing witnesses because we had half of the public servants at the finance committee here the moment that Mr. Turnbull dropped this motion that resulted in this filibuster. It's a bit rich to say that we're holding up hearing from witnesses when they started this whole debacle in the first place. In any event, it is what it is. We have now this programming motion in front of us. I'm just going to go through it because I think it's important that people understand and that they're grounded in what it is that we're discussing.

It says:

As relates to the committee's future business, it be agreed that:

i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday May 9th, 2024, to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter study of Bill C-69....

Now, I just want to say that I know Mr. Turnbull made the point a moment ago that the Minister of Finance came already for an hour. However, this is his motion, so he clearly wants her to come here again. He can't say that he doesn't because the first thing in his motion calls for the Minister of Finance to come to this committee. Am I not right? That's what it says. I don't know why he's now saying that he doesn't want her to be here. It's very strange. Maybe he'll vote against his own motion now.

Then it says:

ii. the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st, 23rd, 28th and 30th, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69....

Now, I think it's important to also mention to people watching that Bill C-69 actually isn't even here at this committee. It's still in the House of Commons, interestingly, because the Liberals can't seem to manage their legislative affairs. We're actually debating a programming motion about a bill that this committee isn't even seized with. Go figure. We're the ones who are blamed for delaying it, but it's still in the House. In fact, to get it out of the House and to committee, they had to bring forward a motion to cut off debate today. Of course, the NDP voted with them again.

I don't know why the NDP keeps carrying water for the Liberals. I mean, I can understand, you know.... They signed a supply and confidence agreement, but what's interesting is that they vote with the Liberals on almost everything. In fact, Mr. Davies voted with them to shut down our Standing Order 106(4) motion on Friday, which was just to study money laundering. Why is the NDP voting with the Liberals to stop studying money laundering? I don't understand it, Mr. Chair. I do remember there was a time when the NDP was actually an opposition party, when they had substantial leaders, like Jack Layton—may he rest in peace—and Tom Mulcair, who would grill Prime Minister Harper relentlessly in question period. However, they're not that party anymore. They've become sycophants for the Liberals, and I don't really understand why. Anyway, the great political minds in the NDP party, I guess, think that this is somehow a good idea.

Then comes my subamendment. It says that, on the week of the 28th, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the minister for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hear from Mark Carney for three hours, and that clause-by-clause not begin until the aforementioned witnesses appear for the requested times.

On the subject of the Minister of Finance, one of the reasons.... I want to touch on this issue of money laundering as well, and it is relevant, I assure you, Mr. Chair. If you bear with me for a few minutes, I'm going to make sure that this committee and its members understand exactly how money laundering is relevant to the Minister of Finance appearing at this committee, which is why it's in my subamendment.

The reason is very simple. The Minister of Finance wrote a letter to you, Mr. Chair, on October 6, 2023. Let's see: November, December, January, February, March, April and May. It was over seven months ago that she wrote a letter to the Honourable Peter Fonseca, P.C., M.P., chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Dear Mr. Fonseca:

I am writing to request your assistance with the fourth five-year parliamentary review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA).

Pursuant to section 72 of [that Act], a committee of Parliament is to conduct a review of the Act's administration and operation every five years. This legislative requirement helps to ensure that the PCMLTFA remains dynamic and responsive to emerging money laundering and terrorist financing threats—

That is very serious business, Mr. Chair.

—and is consistent with evolving international standards aimed at combating those crimes.

That was seven months ago. Then she wrote:

The last review of [the Act] was completed in November 2018.

By my count, that's more than five years. We have a statutory obligation to review this legislation after five years, and now we're in the sixth year—seven months after the minister wrote the letter to this committee.

It says that:

The PCMLTFA does not designate a specific committee of Parliament to undertake the review. I am requesting that the Standing Committee on Finance conduct the review.

After conducting the review, the Committee would be required to submit a report to Parliament recommending any changes to the PCMLTFA or its administration. I suggest the review of the PCMLTFA be initiated this fall—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I have the amendment and the subamendment before me. I note that we're debating the subamendment, I believe.

I think the amendment was where AML was covered, not the subamendment, which I believe you read into the record, so I question the relevance here and suggest that this is not part of the subamendment we're debating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

MP Morantz, this is your subamendment. Do you want to speak to that?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I did explain the relevance, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I'll explain it again. I'll have to back up because maybe Mr. Turnbull wasn't listening.

This is directly relevant because the subamendment calls for the Minister of Finance to come to the committee. I'll read it again: “the week of the 28th one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister [of Finance] for two hours”.

This issue of the letter from the finance minister is relevant because she is the finance minister, and the subamendment, which we are currently debating, calls for her to appear at this committee. I don't think you could rule that it is not relevant, Mr. Chair, but you're free to give it a go if you like.

In any event, I'll just finish reading the letter. It's almost done:

After conducting the review, the Committee would be required to submit a report to Parliament recommending any changes—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order.

I'm sorry to do this again, but I believe this was already read into the record. This is the third time. Again, I question the repetition. It is a point of order on relevance. We already had it read into the record in our Friday committee meeting, and it was once again read into the record today. This is now the third time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Turnbull.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'll make this simple. I'll capitulate to the letter having been read in already. I think I have made my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Morantz, please continue.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

The point is that I signed on to a letter that called for an emergency meeting under the Standing Orders. Standing Order 106(4) says that the chair “shall” call the meeting when it's signed by at least four members from two different parties, so we met the standard required in Standing Order 106(4).

Maybe the clerk could correct me, but I think I recall a notice of meeting actually coming out, which was retracted afterward and then replaced with the notice for the suspended meeting. I could be wrong about that; maybe I'm confusing it with another committee.

Did that happen? It did happen, so I am right about that. A notice of meeting was actually issued according to Standing Order 106(4), and I thought we were having a meeting about Standing Order 106(4). Then, a day later, all of a sudden, an email came from the clerk saying that notice of meeting was being withdrawn. You'll see, when you have a chance to catch up and talk to the clerk about it, that the notice of meeting was withdrawn.

Do you guys remember that?

[An hon. member]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

MP Morantz, I just conferred with the clerk, so I think he should explain what has taken place.

[The Clerk]

In the past when a meeting was suspended, 106(4) requests had been accepted in order to have a meeting between two suspended meetings. That's happened in the past, and this is a precedent that has happened, as I just said. That's the advice I gave to the chair, and that's why he called meeting 143, while meeting 142 was suspended.

The committee's directorate had a discussion when this happened and decided to change the way they were going to deal with the situation, and they no longer permit having a new meeting, while the meeting is suspended—between two suspensions.

The committee's directorate is where all the committee clerks work, including management and the logistics officer. It's the entire directorate that we work for.

The directorate, my managers, decided this would change. They told me to inform the chair that meeting 143 would be removed and would be replaced with the resumption of meeting 142 in order for the chair to fulfill the request of Standing Order 106(4) to let the committee decide what it wanted to do—if it wanted to discuss the subject of Standing Order 106(4) or resume the debate of Bill C-69, which we were in.