Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Just for clarification, Mr. Davies, again, the clerk advised me that when Mr. Morantz originally moved this, it was a dilatory motion with a condition, and the clerk's advice was that it became a debatable motion.

We didn't get to that motion because my ruling in regard to it being a dilatory motion with a condition on it—which means it was open to debate—was overturned by Mr. Turnbull, not the motion that Mr. Morantz brought up.

Once again, this new motion that Mr. Morantz has brought forward is a different motion. It's not the same as the previous one, and we technically have not gotten to it because, once again, we are open to debate on that dilatory motion with a condition, which I got advice from the clerk on.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

With respect, Mr. Chair, your ruling that it was debatable was overturned, and the committee said it's not debatable.

You are now permitting debate on a motion—the identical motion—which was dilatory and non-dilatory at the same time. A dilatory motion to proceed to the Standing Order 106(4) matter was moved originally by Mr. Morantz. You said that was debatable. The committee members challenged your ruling, arguing that it was not debatable. Your ruling was overturned.

Mr. Morantz, when it went back to him, then introduced the same motion, which is a dilatory motion to move to the Standing Order 106(4) request, and you're permitting debate on it when the committee just ruled that we do not agree with your ruling that it's debatable.

You are not following the ruling that was just made by the majority of this committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Mr. Davies, with that, if it's not debatable, then we will just go straight to a vote on it.

Now it becomes dilatory, so we will move to a vote on Mr. Morantz' motion to go straight to Standing Order 106(4). I'll turn it over to the clerk to take votes on this motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Please go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

My understanding is that the procedure set out before us—I believe the sources are Bosc and Gagnon and the Standing Orders, but please correct me if I'm wrong—is that when we have a dilatory motion with a condition, it is debatable, and that is set in law or the regulations.

Can we just, on a majority basis, decide to depart from either the Standing Orders or Bosc and Gagnon at any time? It will be interesting when we form government.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

The clerk has advised me that, yes, committees are masters of their own domains in here, so that is a decision that was made by the committee.

I'll move on to the speaking list that I have.

Mr. Chambers had his hand up. Please go ahead.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I believe we're on the subamendment. Is that correct? Are we on the subamendment of the amendment?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

That is correct.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having Mr. Carney appear isn't like having any random private citizen appear. This individual has a campaign manager, has appeared at other Senate committees and at other House committees in the past as well, and is holding private get-togethers about his plans for the future of the country. For those Liberal Party members, members of caucus, who are supporting other candidates for the leadership—who also have campaign managers—they should want Mr. Carney to face the same level of parliamentary scrutiny that their preferred choice faces on a regular basis.

Note that the parliamentary secretary was the one who retweeted and reposted to amplify Mr. Carney's recent speech wherein he discussed the budget and the future of the party and the country with respect to the economy.

It's not the first time that Mr. Carney has given such speeches. In fact, he has appeared on podcasts for some 80-odd minutes in talking about the economy, the government's financial plan and the needs and the expectations that he would have for an economic growth agenda, so I think it's completely reasonable that members of the committee would like to question this individual.

As I've said, he has a campaign manager and is clearly looking to lead the party in the near future. It is completely within our obligations and duties to question those individuals and submit their names as witnesses or as requests for witnesses to appear, which I believe has already been done with this individual, but that request was rejected. I recall my NDP colleague, whom I hold in high esteem, recently suggesting that if a request to appear had been rejected by any witness, perhaps a summons would be appropriate, so it's possible that the thinking has changed on that front. That was my understanding of the discussion we had a few weeks ago, when there was a specific motion on the table requesting the appearance of this individual.

To those members of the Liberal caucus who are looking to support Mr. Carney, why not give him the platform to perform on the national stage and to give his plan to the people and have it scrutinized by the public? Mr. Carney is a capable individual who can handle himself, as he has on many occasions, both at this committee and at the Senate committee, where he appeared most recently a couple of weeks ago. I think it's completely reasonable to make this request.

I note that with theparliamentary secretary's motion was dropped in the middle of studying the bill, so in fact it's the government motion itself that's preventing the study of the bill. We were studying the bill. We were in rounds of questioning with witnesses, and the government decided to interrupt that to bring a programming motion that it knows would not have the support or consensus of the committee in order to try to frustrate the ability of the committee to perform its duties in reviewing the bill. It actually wants to fast-track this bill through the committee process, as it does every single spring. It is, in fact, the government motion that is preventing the studying of this bill. It is inadequate—as has been pointed out, by the way, by Mr. Davies of the NDP—because it doesn't provide for enough witness testimony.

Conservatives have said that it's inadequate for other reasons, and we would like to include additional items. For example, I appreciate Mr. Turnbull's recommendation as parliamentary secretary that the motion include reference to money laundering, but it is by far inadequate compared to what has previously been done to study money laundering. The last parliamentary committee that studied the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act had 14 meetings.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Go ahead on your point of order, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Chambers continues to mislead this committee with his comments here. The truth is that we know this is a Conservative filibuster. It's on their own subamendment to a quite reasonable motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

Mr. Turnbull, this is not a point of order. It's a point of debate.

Mr. Chambers, you have the floor.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the intervention by my friend. It is not a reasonable motion in the sense that you have multiple parties—including all opposition parties, including the coalition partner—suggesting that the motion is inadequate for one reason or another. That includes the NDP. It includes the Bloc. It includes the Conservatives.

It seems bizarre that the government would like to bring the programming motion and interrupt the study of its own legislation when it knows the end result. This happens every single spring. The government tries to have a programming motion with the shortest amount of committee study time, with the fewest witnesses testifying. It makes one wonder what's actually hiding in the 600-page budget bill. This is how we got the SNC-Lavalin scandal—the review by committee was too fast.

I think Mr. Davies has made an excellent recommendation to increase the number of meetings. The Conservatives have some other ideas as well to permit us to hear from more witnesses. We have an additional buffer of at least one week, or maybe two, when we can have more witness testimony before we have to get this bill back to the House. I don't know why we wouldn't use that time and have more witnesses come in, because what will happen is the same thing that happens every single year, which is that the filibuster will continue. Then at the last minute, we'll jam in 10 or 12 committee meetings all week, and we'll sit all day, every day, instead of just sitting now or sitting when we get there next week, using our regular meetings and not having to have additional meetings. We'd have the amount of witness testimony that Mr. Davies likes.

The government doesn't actually need to move this motion today. We were already studying the bill. It can bring any motion at any time later if it doesn't think we're moving fast enough to call it out at committee or to start clause-by-clause consideration. It doesn't have to have the clause-by-clause requirements in this motion. This is the government that's trying to force through its legislation at committee, knowing that we'll end up in this place and we'll have very little witness testimony to begin with.

I'd also point out that we've had only one round of departmental officials testifying on the bill. It seems rather bizarre that we're preventing a Standing Order 106(4) motion because the government wants to continue to debate a programming motion.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will move that we adjourn the debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

We'll go to a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if a substitute comes in halfway through the vote, is that still valid?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

I'm not really sure, after discussing with the clerk, how to even answer that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I withdraw it out of courtesy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jasraj Singh Hallan]

That's fair enough, Mr. Lawrence.

Colleagues, just from reading the room I don't see that we have much agreement, so I move to suspend the meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 4:39 p.m., Friday, May 17]

[The meeting resumed at 11:02 a.m., Tuesday, May 21]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents. All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” button on the screen. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

On that, members, I hope you had a good week last week. I was not here on Friday. I guess a speakers list was not captured as far as who was on that list when we last left off on Friday, so the speakers list is open.

We are on MP Morantz's subamendment.

I saw the hand of an eager MP Chambers just go up, so we have MP Chambers on the list. Anybody else can let me know as we go along.

I see MP Davies, then MP Morantz and then MP Dzerowicz.

We'll get started with MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome back, everyone. I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday weekend.

We had a great start to the weekend with a committee meeting. That's how I like to start every holiday weekend, Mr. Chair.

Now, Mr. Chair, I have sent the clerk a transcript in English, which I'm hoping he will be able to share with our translators. When I get the thumbs-up from the translators that they have it, I will commence. Until then, let's just remind ourselves where we are.

There is an amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chambers, I'm seeing heads shaking that they do not have it.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I won't enter the transcript until I get a signal from our friends that they have it, but let's do a bit of a recap as to where we are.

We have a motion to fast-track this over 600-page budget bill, which apparently needs to get out of committee by June 3, according to the government. We know that's not true. There's at least one other week during which we could have committee meetings and witness testimony. We also have an amendment to hear from Mr. Mark Carney.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It has been received.