Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

What does my honourable colleague mean by “came here at the same time”? I'd like him to explain that.

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

Let me clarify. It means that they joined this committee around the same time. In our experience, we've seen nothing but the blocking of their own legislation and other heavy-handed things that, of course, as the official opposition on behalf of Canadians, we won't let happen in this committee.

I want to address things that my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz brought up because I think it's very important, and these are some important issues that Canadians and Canadian businesses are facing as well.

When we talk about Canadian businesses, in this expensive, costly, photo op budget by this Liberal-NDP government, they're claiming that they're going to give back carbon tax rebates to businesses. These businesses have been waiting for more than five years for this—more than five years. They took this money, and emissions went up under this pretense that somehow it would fix the environment, which it didn't. Chrystia Freeland said that businesses would somehow be better off, that the environment would be better off and that Canadians would be better off, but none of those things happened. Not a single one of those things happened.

In fact, Chrystia Freeland's own environment department admitted that they don't even keep track of the emissions that are tied in with the carbon tax scam. It's a total scam. There is nothing that ties in both things, because they know it's just like Justin Trudeau and not worth the cost. That's why. That's why they don't keep track of it. They take more and more from Canadians and now, supposedly, they're supposed to be the heroes of small businesses that have suffered with higher taxes, labour shortages and all sorts of pain, which they've inflicted on not just the business owners but the workers of those businesses as well.

I want to address that. What a common-sense Conservative government would do is not take the money in the first place. You wouldn't need these phony rebates if you didn't take the money away in the first place. Chrystia Freeland has on multiple occasions come to this committee, just like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and refused to answer what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed on multiple occasions: that most households are worse off when you factor in the economic and fiscal impacts of the carbon tax. That is exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said.

Then when you have Chrystia Freeland brag, day in and day out, with the falsehood that somehow this carbon tax is supposed to make life better for Canadians, it's false. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said so himself. He proved that this carbon tax scam is not worth the cost, and emissions went up once again. In fact, it's so bad that Canada's ranking on the climate change index fell from 58 to 62. Can you believe that? However, the carbon tax went up. Can you believe that? It's crazy. I know, Chair. It's crazy that you could raise the carbon tax and fall in the climate change index. Would you believe that? That is the record of nine years of this government and their failed policies.

What did that do? Chrystia Freeland would tell you that Canadians have never had it so good. Well, this carbon tax scam is responsible for two million Canadians going to a food bank in a single month and a million more projected this year. There are families making decisions that they've never had to make before. There are moms who go to the grocery store and spend double the time because they have to pick up food and think twice about whether they can afford this. They're having to skip meals. Can you believe that? Canadians are having to skip meals in this country.

My family came here as immigrants, like many others. There are many people who grew up here all saying the same thing. This is not the same Canada that we knew, because after nine years of this government, Canada is broken. Despite what the Liberals might try to sell you, it's just like their carbon tax scam. It's just a scam. In fact, 400,000 people left this country last year, and the high cost of living was their number one reason. That never used to happen to us, and it's stuff that we've never heard before. After nine years of this government, that's the reality of Canadians today.

Canada used to be a place people wanted to come to. They could afford a home. They could run a good business. There were safe streets. They could send their kids to walk alone to school. None of those things are possible anymore after nine years of this government.

This is the Canada that Chrystia Freeland is bragging about, saying after nine years that Canadians have never had it so good. You don't have to look very far. You just have to go to some of the streets of our bigger cities to see the crime, chaos, destruction and what high-cost, high-deficit governments do to their citizens.

Can you believe that we live in a country right now where there are teachers and nurses living in their cars because, after nine years of this government, supported by the NDP, they can't afford rent because it has doubled? Mortgages have doubled. In fact, Canadians can't renew their mortgages because of the high interest rates. That's the Canada we live in.

When we talk about food banks, there's a phenomenon that we've never seen before. Double-income families, sometimes with two members who earn a good living, can't afford to eat, heat or house themselves anymore. That wasn't the promise of Canada. That wasn't the Canadian dream that was promised to those people who came here, who left everything behind to come here for a better future. They were promised they could afford to buy groceries, to heat their homes and to live in a home, all at the same time. However, after nine years of this government, supported by the NDP all along the way, this is the reality of Canada. The Canadian dream is broken. The Canadian dream has turned into a nightmare for many people we've talked to.

I think that if the Liberals and the NDP started talking to their constituents, they would realize the pain that it causes. Mr. Jivani clearly outlined what was happening in Mr. Turnbull's own riding. This wasn't a reality before. It is now, yet virtue signalling and being woke is more important to this Liberal-NDP government than actually helping out Canadians.

This budget, this $40 billion of new inflationary net spending, does nothing to help Canadians out. In fact, everyone has seen high interest rates. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has been here multiple times and talked about higher rates for longer, and that's the pain that Canadians have to feel. When asked, he says that this government's fiscal policy and his monetary policy are rowing in opposite directions. It is a factor in why interest rates can't come down.

That's why when people are renewing their mortgages, sometimes they're renewing at double or triple the rate. That's why Canadians are now living in their cars, living under bridges and in tents. There are tent cities all across this country like we've never seen before.

That's just nine years of how broken Canada is under this Prime Minister with the help of the NDP, who, by the way, keeps the Prime Minister in his place out of greed for their own leader's pension. That's what this is all about.

This budget is no different. It's going to keep this Prime Minister in longer, causing more pain for Canadians. Canadians don't see hope right now at all. A year and a half is a long way to an election. That's why our leader called for a carbon tax election. If the Liberal-NDP government is so sure of their carbon tax scam, why not pause it?

By the way, before the Liberal-NDP government jacked it up by 23% on April 1, 70% of Canadians, including seven out of 10 premiers, said to spike the hike and not to raise the carbon tax. However, government members did what they always do. They want to inflict as much pain on Canadians as possible to raise the price of groceries, gas and home heating even more. They refused to listen to Canadians, and they jacked it up, knowing that a million more Canadians would visit a food bank on top of the two million who visited a food bank in a single month, despite all of that.

When they talk about fairness, Canadians clearly see that it's not what they're talking about. It might be fairness for the government to collect more from Canadians, but for everyday Canadians, there is no fairness whatsoever.

My colleague, Ms. Dzerowicz also brought up money laundering. I'm appalled that she would even bring that up after last week when Conservatives, with our Bloc colleague, forced a meeting last Friday on money laundering.

Once again, the Liberals, along with Don Davies from the NDP, chose to block that very important motion brought by my good friend and great colleague Adam Chambers. We could have been studying this money laundering issue. It's massive. In fact, it's so big and so important, that Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance wrote to this committee—to you, Chair—on October 6, 2023.

She wrote, “Dear Mr. Fonseca: I am writing to request your assistance with the fourth five-year parliamentary review of the proceeds of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA).” This letter goes on to say that the last review of the PCMLTFA was completed in November 2018.

This review takes place every five years. It's already over what it needs to be. She literally.... Maybe she was just doing this out of formality, but we take that seriously because there have been three different banks that have been allegedly caught up in money laundering. The most recent was TD Bank. This was the reason we wanted to call that meeting, which was blocked, once again, by Mr. Davies, Mr. Turnbull and his crew of Liberals.

There was a headline that says,“TD Bank could face more severe penalties after drug money laundering allegations, says analyst. Bank could face worst-case scenario after report connects TD to illicit fentanyl profits”.

Another headline is “TD probe tied to laundering drug money, says Wall Street Journal. Court documents and sources reveal investigators found evidence of a drug-money-laundering operation”. Another is “TD bank hit with $9.2 million penalty for failing to report suspicious transactions. Canada's financial intelligence agency fines TD as bank faces further compliance probes in the U.S.”

My question is, what do these Liberals and Mr. Davies have to hide? Why did they block a common-sense Conservative motion from going through? In fact, it's a very good motion.

I'll read it in. It's from my friend, Mr. Chambers, from Tuesday, March 19. It says:

...pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and with regards to section 72 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the committee undertake a study to review the Act and the current situation regarding money laundering and terrorist financing in Canada. That as part of the study the committee calls the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for no fewer than two hours, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada no fewer than two hours, the Minister of Public Safety no fewer than two hours, the Minister of National Revenue no fewer than two hours, department officials for the departments of Justice and Public Safety, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canadian Border Security Agency, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, the Cullen Commission Lead Counsel, Royal Bank of Canada, TD Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, CIBC, National Bank, the Ontario Securities Commission and other witnesses as submitted by the members of the committee. That the committee take no fewer than ten meetings for this study and that it report its findings to the House.

What I don't understand was why, even though the Minister of Finance has been asking for this—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I wonder if you could clarify.

Mr. Hallan said that he wasn't passing this motion. I believe he indicated that he's reading a motion. I would like absolute clarity on what's happening.

Is he indeed trying to move this motion, or is it just another example of speaking for hours?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Thompson.

MP Hallan will clarify what he's doing.

Again, we are speaking to MP Morantz's subamendment.

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

Absolutely.

Ms. Thompson was at Friday's committee meeting, where she and the Liberals, along with Don Davies, decided to block the motion. As was done on Friday, I'm simply reading into the record a motion from my friend Adam Chambers. There was no mention of moving it, and there was no mention of putting it on notice. It's on notice already.

Mr. Chambers has already read it into the record once, so I was just doing that again because Chrystia Freeland, the Minister of Finance, requested this. In fact, she's the one who wanted this study to take place.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The witness—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Chair, he's talking about a motion that has not been debated. That has nothing to do.... If they're going to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's a point of order, MP Angus.

MP Davies, please continue.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks.

Mr. Angus is my substitute. I'll make my last point, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Angus.

On Friday, we were debating a subamendment, and no motions are permitted to be moved when we're debating a subamendment. The Conservatives—I think it was Mr. Chambers, but I'm not sure who it was—said that he wasn't moving the motion; he was reading it into the record. Therefore, it has already been read into the record.

I'd ask you, Mr. Chair, to rule on this. Some of us thought there was an attempt to move a motion at a time when it couldn't be done. If the true objective on Friday was simply to read it into the record, it has already been read into the record.

This is a continuation of that meeting. The meeting was suspended on Friday, not adjourned, so we're in the same meeting.

I don't think you can read it into the record twice. If Mr. Hallan's true purpose was to simply read the motion into the record, then that has been done. He asserts that he's simply reading it into the record, but that can't possibly be the case because it has already been done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm going to confer with the clerk, so we're going to suspend for 15 or 20 minutes. I think everybody needs a health break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

Members have received a fair bit of information, although I don't have all the information before me on these points of order for a ruling. I will be reviewing all that took place on Friday. I guess there was a fair bit. I will be looking over the video. The blues are still not available, but I'll be looking over the blues. I have conferred with the clerk, and I will get back to members once I've gone through all of that.

Are members good with that? Okay. That's where I am right now. I've heard a lot from everyone, but I have to do that work before coming back to the committee.

We had MP Davies, who has been substituted by MP Angus, on a point of order, and MP Angus on a point of order. There was also a point of order, I believe, from MP Hallan.

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

It's just a response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

MP Angus, I don't know if you heard what I just had to say. I've been looking into this. I don't have the information. I don't even have the blues, and I don't have the video. I have to look through all of it and then come back to the committee.

MP Angus, you're next on your point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Chair, my only concern with what you're offering is that if we're debating a motion and someone is filling time talking about another motion, then they're not being relevant to the discussion. If we're going to stay here all night, at least they have to stay on point and they weren't on point. They were talking about something that was peripheral to the discussion. That was my concern.

Mr. Davies explained much more clearly that he had already read the motion into the record, which I think is important information, but my objection was that if I have to listen to the member speak, he can't just keep bringing up stuff that is not relevant to the conversation. Otherwise, they're wasting our time and they're wasting enormous resources of the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Angus.

I think all committee members would agree that relevance is important and that we stick to what we are debating, and that is, really, MP Morantz's subamendment. That's what we should stick to and keep focused on.

On that, I will go over to MP Hallan, please.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We're discussing very relevant points about Chrystia Freeland, like things that she said and her failed Liberal-NDP budget, which is costly at that, and all these points are very relevant. It is Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who, to the points I was making about money laundering, asked this committee back in October to study money laundering, so it's very relevant to note the negative impacts that money laundering has had in Canada.

It was sad to see that last Friday, after a forced meeting by the common-sense Conservatives and the Bloc, it was a Liberal-NDP government that blocked this important work. It could have been started. As we know, not only was TD hit with a fine, but there's also alleged money laundering happening through illicit drugs. This is very concerning because after nine years of this government, we see opioid deaths are up, and we see crime, chaos and disorder. Some of this stuff is tied in with money laundering. That's why it's more important than ever right now that we study money laundering, something that Chrystia Freeland, who is a part of this subamendment, has asked for.

I know the NDP and the Liberals don't want to talk about this because they blocked it on Friday from taking place, but it is impacting lives. In fact, it's impacting lives so much that it's common-sense Conservatives who had to bring private members' bills forward because the Liberals and the NDP are not taking it seriously. Money laundering is tied into the extortions that are happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm going to interject really quickly here.

MP Angus, is the hand up for a point of order or to be on the speakers list?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It is a point of order, Chair.

We aren't debating money laundering. I think an investigation into money laundering is long overdue. Canada has a notorious reputation going back decades, but that's not what we're here to do.

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

This is debate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

No, Chair, this is about relevance. He has an obligation to stay focused. If he's just going to walk around the block talking about whatever comes into his head, he's wasting our time, and you, as chair, have an obligation to ask for relevance.

Talking about opioid deaths is not what we're talking about. He can go to the health committee and do that. We are here to address this motion, and we need to get that dealt with.

I'm asking you, Chair, to keep our member focused on what's relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Angus.

We always speak to relevance and to keeping it as focused as we possibly can.

We have MP Hallan, speaking to MP Morantz's subamendment to the motion, please.

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

Look, I don't put it past the NDP to always not just prop up the Liberals, but make sure these important topics are not talked about. It speaks to the disastrous record after nine years of this government.

To that point, Ms. Dzerowicz talked about money laundering, because supposedly it was in the budget, so I'm not sure why Mr. Angus thinks Ms. Dzerowicz can talk about it, but because I'm a Conservative I can't talk about it. It's absolutely relevant, so I will go back to the point that Chrystia Freeland, who is very much a part of the subamendment, has talked about money laundering, and the Liberals and the NDP continue to block us from studying money laundering. It is a concern.

As I said, common-sense Conservatives have put forward private members' bills that are related to money laundering. In fact, our colleague, our deputy leader Tim Uppal, put forward a bill on extortions, which are also tied into money laundering. We know that's happening. We know that with the illicit drugs that are being sold, there is some tie-in with money laundering. The auto thefts that are happening are tied to money laundering. That's why it's important. We don't have any faith in the Liberal-NDP government that their so-called budget is going to address this; it's just a costly photo-op budget that they're bragging about. It will do nothing to help everyday Canadians. That is what we're talking about here.

Please excuse us if we don't trust or believe that after nine years of this government, there will be any changes, because they're still on the same reckless path with this budget that they've always been on. It's the same path that led to Canadians having doubled rents and doubled mortgages because of out-of-control spending, with $400 billion of non-secured, rolled-over money—debt that they've accumulated. It's also the reason that Canadians are on the hook for the Liberal-NDP government's debt, with $54 billion in just interest charges. Can you believe that? There's going to be more money this year going to bankers, bondholders and finance minister Chrystia Freeland's Bay Street buddies than what's going to doctors, nurses and health transfers. That's after nine years of this government.

The NDP have no problem supporting this failed, costly budget, because they want to protect their leader Jagmeet Singh's pension. That's what all of this is about. It's a shame. It's a shame that they would support such a failed budget, one that's going to add another $40 billion of net new spending—inflationary spending at that. This is what we've seen year after year, and it's only going to get worse for Canadians the longer this Liberal-NDP government stays in power.

Now, it's not just Chrystia Freeland who wants us to talk about money laundering. In fact, tied to what happened recently with TD and the allegations—the same money laundering that Conservatives tried to bring forward and the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, blocked recently—is that Mark Carney, carbon tax Carney, when he was the governor of the Bank of Canada, talked about banks as well. This is why it's so important that we follow up with what Chrystia Freeland said on money laundering, which is also supposedly in her costly budget.

There's an article by the CBC, believe it or not, from July 18, 2012, that says, “Mark Carney's new rule for banks: Don't be evil”. It says, “Even Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney weighed in Wednesday, calling banking culture ‘deeply troubling,’ saying that bankers have to ‘substantially raise their game to levels of conduct that in any other aspect of life, are expected.’” So carbon tax Carney himself has talked about this money laundering and why we need to make sure we have better rules in Canada, especially when it comes to our banks.

There's the Cullen report, which was completed in 2022. This report said that if B.C. is to stop money laundering, they need to make their own financial crimes intelligence agency, because the Trudeau government isn't doing anything. I would add in there that it's the Trudeau-NDP government that isn't doing anything, because we recently saw them block any attempt by this committee to study cracking down on money laundering and the proceeds of crime for things like extortions and auto thefts, which we're seeing rise. Just recently, experts say that the Liberals' efforts are a “slap on the wrist” with regard to the alleged TD money laundering. That is the record of this Liberal-NDP government. That's why it's important we study this.

Mark Carney's rule for banks is to not be evil. That's why we want him here. However, Mr. Turnbull table-dropped this motion and started this incredible filibuster. It is a first that a parliamentary secretary would table-drop a motion and start a filibuster on their own bill. Can you imagine, in all that time, how many times we could have heard from carbon tax Carney? Maybe he could have confirmed whether he thinks, just like Chrystia Freeland, that cancelling Disney+ means that all inflation and cost of living problems will be solved, or whether he believes, like Chrystia Freeland, that everyone should ride a bike to solve their cost of living issues, or whether he thinks that two million people going to a food bank in a single month, after nine years of this government, means Canadians have never had it better. However, we can't, because Mr. Turnbull started this incredible filibuster. As I said, this is the first time I've ever seen that from a parliamentary secretary. Maybe it's because he wants to endorse carbon tax Carney, and maybe he doesn't want to support Chrystia Freeland in her bid to become Liberal leader. Maybe he started this whole thing to protect carbon tax Carney.

What we could have done with all this time, if this filibuster had not been started by Mr. Turnbull—which was supported by Mr. Davies of the NDP—is heard from carbon tax Carney. Just as carbon tax Carney said that banks should not be evil.... Money laundering has surged like we've never seen before. Maybe that's why Chrystia Freeland wanted to have us study it here. I have some facts on money laundering, and I could have asked Mark Carney, if he were sitting here, about whether he agrees with the experts, who estimate that over $100 billion could be laundered through Canada every year.

In 2019, the U.S. State Department described Canada as a “major money laundering country”, alongside Afghanistan, the British Virgin Islands, China, Macau and Colombia. Can you believe, after nine years of this government, that “major money laundering country” is what we're known as, alongside Afghanistan, the British Virgin Islands and China? That's the reputation Canada has under this Liberal-NDP government. It's incredible, yet I see why the Liberals and the NDP want to block any type of motion studying this. It's because it would unravel the amount of corruption that would come out. It would unravel why Canadians have to live through the worst cost of living crisis seen in Canadian history. That's the record of this Liberal-NDP government.

I'll go on with more important facts that I could have asked Mark Carney about if it were not for the blocking that's happening. Global Financial Integrity concluded that $626.3 million U.S. was laundered between 2015 and 2020, and a 2019 RCMP report estimated that $46.7 billion was laundered in Canada in 2018 alone. It's no wonder the Cullen report said that B.C. should create its own agency because the Trudeau government isn't doing anything. That's absolutely right. It's because they're getting propped up by the NDP and letting all of this happen.

I can talk about extortion. I recently visited a very successful transport company that's seen extortion. I watched video clips and an audio clip. In the audio clip, someone calls and says they want x amount of money or they're going to shoot up the house. Then I saw a video of a white SUV pulling up to the house and someone shooting at the house. This family, like many others in this country, now has to live separately from each other in different hotels across the GTA because of the soft-on-crime policies of this government. They have led to a lot of money laundering, which Chrystia Freeland has asked us to study.

That's what nine years of this government has given Canadians. This immigrant family came here looking for a better future and risked everything for a safer future for their kids. They worked day and night and went from working as janitors to running this successful transport company, and now they are fearful because success is punished in this country after nine years of this government, which has been propped up by the NDP.

These soft-on-crime policies have real consequences for families like the one I just talked about. They live in fear every day. It was the first time I had seen bulletproof windows on a car, and it was the first time they had to find a supplier who would do that for them too. This Trudeau government, just as the Cullen report from B.C said, isn't doing anything, and with the support of the NDP, they continue to block any type of study into it. That's the reason we continuously call for us to fulfill the ask by the Deputy Prime Minister and get right down to this report. We know that extortion is up and we know auto theft is up. They're tied into money laundering as well.

I'll move on with some more facts. In October 2020, Ottawa was criticized—Ottawa being this Liberal-NDP government, for those listening—for doing little to control the flow of illicit funds. Shortly after the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, announced that it would be dismantling its anti-money laundering section, a retired OSFI official, Nicolas Choules-Burbidge, said, “This dismantling is despite that banks are the riskiest part of the financial sector.” He went on to say, “This is yet another backward step by Canada as the government”—this Liberal-NDP government—“ignores the dismantling of our anti-money laundering regime. Canadian lawyers are not covered at all and are known to be the highest risk.”

Despite knowing all of this, it puzzles me why this Liberal-NDP government would want to continue to block this study. Chrystia Freeland, and even Mark Carney to some degree, knows how important it is to study this, but members continue to team up to block a common-sense Conservative motion brought by—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have a point of order.

I'm subbing in on this committee, and I know the committee is doing great work, but I would like to get a bit of clarification, if I could, as a new temporary member of the committee. Could you read the subamendment we're talking about right now? Would it be possible to give us a quick reading of it? I don't have it in front of me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We will—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Do you mind reading it, though?