Evidence of meeting #142 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Mr. Chambers, is it the same point of order as Mr. Turnbull's?
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
My understanding is that committee members have the right to request an emergency meeting and that Standing Order 106(4) takes precedence over other committee business. I may have been mistaken on that front, but there is a bit of an unintended consequence here. You could envision a point in time when there would never be a Standing Order 106(4) request because committees could always just suspend. I don't believe the initial intent of having the Standing Order 106(4) request was that it could be frustrated by suspension.
I'll just leave that for you to consider.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Thank you, Mr. Chambers.
Colleagues, look, advice was given by the clerk on this. A Standing Order 106(4) request does take precedence in most cases. I'm the chair, and that's how we've proceeded with this meeting, as I have already announced. I think I've made that clear.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
On a point of order, Chair, if that's your ruling, I challenge the ruling of the chair.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
We'll go to a vote, then.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 4)
Colleagues, I'll suspend to get some advice from the clerk on how to proceed from this point.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Colleagues, I've conferred with the clerk, and what we'll do is continue at this point from the subamendment that was put forward by Mr. Morantz at the last meeting. I have a speaking list from the last time that starts with Mr. Lawrence and then has Ms. Dzerowicz.
I'll just give a heads-up, Ms. Dzerowicz, that the interpreters cannot pick up your connection, but you're more than welcome to pass your time on to other colleagues.
Colleagues, anyone who wants to get on the speaking list is more than welcome to.
We'll go on to Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said earlier, I'm deeply disappointed and troubled. Money laundering is a scourge that's affecting the Canadian economy, and that has a real impact on individual Canadians. Currently, it's estimated that money laundering is costing Canadians upwards of $100 billion.
What's as troubling as that is where those proceeds are often directed. We've seen in recent news articles regarding TD Bank that perhaps money being funnelled illegally through a Canadian financial institution was used for fentanyl. We also know for sure that money laundering currently supports such terrible activities as—
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask for relevance. This does not relate to the subamendment introduced by Mr. Morantz, which focused on having someone appear at our committee. I believe it was Mark Carney, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how Mr. Lawrence's intervention has anything to do with that subamendment.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Mr. Lawrence, if you can, keep it relevant.
Continue on.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
As I said, a significant portion of these funds end up with some of the worst people and the worst activities you could possibly imagine, including the illegal trade of drugs such as fentanyl and other opioids, which are poisoning Canadians at record rates; human trafficking; and other horrible crimes that I know everyone stands united against.
A portion of these funds also distorts the economy. They end up driving up the cost of real estate, most notably in some of our largest cities, contributing to the worsening of housing unaffordability—
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm uncertain of the relevance. We are back on the subamendment about bringing Mr. Carney to committee. Given what Mr. Lawrence is saying, I'm not at all certain if there's any relevance to the motion.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Ms. Thompson, as far as I've seen, there is usually some preamble given whenever anyone talks, but I would ask Mr. Lawrence to get to his point as soon as he can.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much.
I will inform the members of the Liberal Party that I will be connecting this back to Mr. Carney. However, specifically in the amendment, there is notation of and reference to money laundering, so that is completely within the scope of the discussion.
My thought process is that, although there are many things that Liberal, Conservative and NDP members disagree upon, our problem with money laundering I would not list among them. In fact, I hope that this is a non-partisan issue.
We, of course, got a letter from the Minister of Finance, which has now lapsed, calling for a review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to raise the point of order that we're still hearing our colleague go off the subject. I don't know how money laundering connects to the current discussion. We're discussing the subamendment. If he wants to discuss the amendment on anti-money laundering, he can bring the subamendment to a vote. So—
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, on that point of order....
Conservative
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I will just point out that in the motion introduced by Mr. Turnbull, paragraph v calls for a study on money laundering. A discussion of money laundering in the context of the motion, amendments or subamendments would be on point and in order.
Conservative
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
My understanding from the procedural rules is that when you introduce a subamendment, you're confined to speaking about the nature of that subamendment and to making arguments that are relevant to it, not to the whole motion.
I would welcome any advice from the clerk or from you, Chair, on that topic.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jasraj Singh Hallan
Thank you, colleagues.
I'll ask Mr. Lawrence to get to his point.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It's difficult to respond to the various points of order when I'm not even given the opportunity to explain the connection. I can assure my Liberal colleagues, who seem very eager to point out relevance, that I've been in lengthy committee discussions before during which members of the Liberal Party have wandered far from the subject. We are given, according to Bosc and Gagnon, a wide latitude. That is a matter of principle.
I'll continue. If the members wish to make points of order, that is their right.
We have now missed our statutory obligation with respect to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. This is significant. We are becoming a pariah on the economic world scene. We have seen money laundering, and there are even terms for it now. That's how significant an issue it has become. It's called “snow washing”.
We need to take this issue extremely seriously. Allowing a review from the deputy leader to lapse is not showing leadership. We are ultimately the finance committee, so reviewing money laundering and illicit financing is squarely within our rubric. Our failure to do that is, quite frankly, putting forward a signal that I'm not proud of. It's saying that Canadians are not taking money laundering seriously.
On our side of the aisle, we have been outspoken in calling for greater enforcement and improvements to money-laundering legislation in Canada. My colleague Adam Chambers, for example, brought forward Bill C-289, which would have made lying to financial institutions when opening an account a more serious offence.
This is a significant problem. We are seeing over and over again, after nine years of this NDP-Liberal government, that the country is not working as it should. The government seems incapable of doing the most basic of tasks, whether that be delivering passports or, in this case much more seriously, preventing illicit funds from flowing from around the world, which are being snow-washed in Canada and then are coming out the other side to finance illicit activities such as human trafficking, drug trafficking and even terrorism.
This is a most serious subject. That's why Conservatives called the Standing Order 106(4) meeting. Liberals are using a technicality to delay this debate. That perhaps says all you need to know about—
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Chair, on a point of order with regard to relevance, my understanding is that the subamendment introduced by the Conservatives on the motion that was amended and then subamended adds the following text: “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”.
I still cannot for the life of me understand how any of the comments made by Mr. Lawrence thus far relates to that particular subamendment, which is the only thing this committee is debating. Perhaps Mr. Lawrence would like us to move to a vote so he can make his arguments on his colleague's amendment, which does include a reference to this.