Information & Ethics Committee on June 2nd, 2023

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay.

Was the governance optimal?

[Dr. Dyane Adam]

Are you asking me or the other witnesses? I can hold the floor, but I would still like to leave—

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It's for everyone.

Ms. Redfern, what do you think?

[Madeleine Redfern]

Having been on many different boards over the last 30 years, I was satisfied with the level of governance on the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation until we hit that crisis a couple of months ago.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay.

So governance was fine until this crisis, which has shown that it may not have been so fine after all, because the crisis was difficult to understand, I think.

Were any funds from the foundation used indirectly by Alexandre Trudeau to fund his own projects, among other things? Are you aware of that kind of thing?

[Madeleine Redfern]

No.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It's not in your sphere of activity, okay.

Do you believe the people who had to recuse themselves were possibly in a conflict of interest?

[Dr. Dyane Adam]

I would perhaps invite Dr. Gibson to chime in.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I forgot about her because she's online.

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

Sure. Thank you very much.

Similarly to what Madeleine Redfern said, during the governance crisis, there was no clear path through. There was a very confused and heated meeting that we never received minutes from. The meeting was extremely long. It was a four-hour meeting. After that meeting, when we had asked the directors who were in a conflict of interest to recuse themselves and we thought we had a clear path through, there was a flood of emails, and those emails came from a group of people, a number of people who, at every turn, struck down the path forward.

There was a suggestion that a lawyer be retained to advise. That was agreed to, but then the lawyer's background was called into question. Then there was a suggestion that the folks who had been involved in the years in question recuse themselves. There was a flurry of emails about that. Then there were in-depth edits to motions I had put forward.

All of this was a very heavy effort in the context of virtual communication. There was a boxing in of movement forward, and no clear path for all of the directors to move collectively through. Draft motions asking people to recuse themselves were struck down. We tried to run those motions through a good process, but at each turn, as I said, these motions were struck down. At no point in the process did the directors from the years in question register a conflict of interest or move away from the decision-making process.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Did this kind of situation, this kind of drama, happen every time the foundation received a donation, or did it only happen in the case of the Chinese donation?

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

We only became aware of the Chinese donation by virtue of the president bringing it to the attention of the directors. Those who had knowledge of this previously had not brought that to the attention of the directors, so the answer is that we weren't aware of it. We shouldn't have been aware of individual donations like that. We were aware of them collectively, and the finance committee would have been looking at the nature of individual donations, but at the broader director level, we were not looking specifically at those sorts of matters.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In his testimony, Alexandre Trudeau said that people hadn't been asked to recuse themselves because there was no reason to do so. Do you agree with him?

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

He wasn't involved. Mr. Trudeau was not involved in the questions at the director level, but there were motions asking directors to recuse themselves. He was not involved at that level of governance, but it is, in fact, incorrect.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

That completes our first round. We are going to go five, five, two and a half, two and a half minutes, and then I have a question at the end.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Dr. Gibson, you moved the motion for recusal. Is that correct?

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

Yes, that's correct.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Why?

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

I was aware there was either a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict of interest, and I spoke to the chair of the board about that. I suggested that anyone who had been involved as a director or in those committees in the years in question should be recusing themselves in order to allow for independence. We needed to be able to independently review what had occurred, and what had happened. We were requesting an independent review at the time.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Did they recuse themselves?

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

There was no recusal of individuals. There was a flurry and a constant engagement by people who were either in a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Could you succinctly offer a synopsis of their rationale for their refusal to recuse themselves?

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

There was no reason offered.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'm going to direct these questions to everyone on the panel, if I can.

Have you seen evidence as to who the actual donor was of the $140,000?

We'll start online with you, Dr. Gibson.

[Dr. Ginger Gibson]

It was just what was available in The Globe and Mail, and what was said in meetings. I think that's been clearly discussed at this committee level.