Public Accounts Committee on May 15th, 2023

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I will say it again, we're now ready not only to vote on the motion, but also to discuss all the wording at a later date.

In my opinion, this motion is incomplete because the committee already agreed on this on April 24. Since the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is being asked to submit its request by September 15, plus it takes two weeks to get documents… Basically, someone who's against the statement “as requested by the committee in its report number 27” is against passing the bill.

Let's deal with this now and continue the discussion later. Everyone can have their say, and that may lead to other improvements.

Mr. Chair, as soon as you receive Report Number 27 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, we can put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have here a list of speakers who wish to speak.

Madame Bradford, you have the floor, please.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to Madame Gaudreau's amendment, I'm a bit confused as to what it adds substantively to MP McCauley's original motion. I know you want to refer to that previous motion, which we haven't seen yet. We're waiting for it to be produced.

I guess my concern is this: I'm very alarmed that—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

On that point, the clerk is endeavouring to do that. You all have staff. They as well can send you the motion that we passed at this committee.

It's over to you, Ms. Bradford.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. Again, we were not expecting to be referring to that motion, so we really haven't had the benefit of seeing it before.

I'm very concerned about the independence of the CRA. Parliament does not direct the RCMP on what investigations it does, nor do we direct the CRA on who it investigates. I think it's very important to honour the independence of the CRA.

I know Ms. Shanahan has referred to how anybody can go to the CRA and say, “I suggest you look here.” As an MP, yes, I'm a person, but I personally would not do that as a member of Parliament, because it would look like I might be trying to centre out someone or an organization.

The independence of the CRA is so critical to our Income Tax Act. The privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act and the CRA are fundamental. We cannot have people feeling that if someone had a vendetta against them or against some foundation or whatever, Parliament would be able to say, “You need to investigate this group” for whatever reason. I guess an individual could even not provide a reason. They'd just say, “You know, I think maybe you should look at this.” I'm very uncomfortable with that.

The other concern I have is that the public accounts committee is, traditionally, the rear-view mirror. We look at what has happened to see if there's any learning going forward. We generally focus on the Auditor General's reports on things that she's investigated, so I'm a bit confused about this final point here, in that we're asking about future documents that haven't even been generated yet, as opposed to things that are historical records, albeit confidential in this case.

Those are the concerns that I have.

I think we're treading a fine line here when we, as Parliament, are directing the CRA on where it should look, because I think the separation—we could call it church and state—of Parliament and independent agencies like the CRA and the RCMP.... The reason the public can have confidence in them and their objectivity is that it's hands-off from Parliament. We can look at what they find, but we can't tell them where to look, and that's my fundamental concern with this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief.

With all due respect, there are some common but painfully bad arguments being made by my friends and colleagues across the way.

The idea that a parliamentary committee can't request access to documents because of privacy concerns is ridiculous. We all know or should know that parliamentary committees exercise authority that is analogous to that exercised by courts. If a court needs to access information, they can order the production of that information and they can use that information.

There are exceptions, for instance, in the Privacy Act. Clearly, we've dealt with this before. There's an exception in the Privacy Act that applies to information that has been requested—ordered produced—by a lawful authority.

This motion does not direct the CRA. It is a standard motion requesting information. This committee has already unanimously passed a motion recommending an audit to the CRA. If that was fine, then surely this is fine. This recommends nothing to the CRA. It requests information.

I put it to members that in asking for information that can be reviewed by members in camera—information that is clearly germane to the study—to find out what is happening and who's investigating, in the context of a clear will by members here to see—at least on paper, there's a will—an investigation take place, we need to access documents related to that investigation.

This is not asking for anything out of the ordinary. It's exercising powers that committees have the power to use and routinely have the power to use. The supposition that someone would be violating the law by complying with an order from a parliamentary committee to provide information to the committee completely ignores what a parliamentary committee is. We're not just 10 or 11 people sitting around the table; we exercise the authority of Parliament when we order the production of documents. We have a moral obligation to use that information responsibly, as we will, but this is clearly germane to the study.

It's pretty clear to me that members across the way are intent on talking the clock out and not letting the motion pass, which they have the procedural ability to do, but let's not be under any illusions here. There's not some detailed, exhaustive detective work happening on what is obviously a very narrow and precise amendment from my colleague in the Bloc. This is an effort to talk this out to avoid accountability for the Trudeau foundation regarding foreign interference and to avoid documents being sent to the committee.

As I expect that we'll see Liberal members continue to talk this out over the next hour, let's be under absolutely no illusions about what they're doing or why they're doing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I've heard the views of colleagues.

In the amendment in front of me, here's the change that it calls for to Mr. McCauley's substantive motion: “And, as requested by the committee in its Report Number 27 asking the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation”.

That work is happening. As a committee, we had our first meeting to look at matters that we agreed to look at.

Just so we're on the same page, because this amendment refers to report 27, there were two motions passed that are relevant.

The first was:

That the committee calls on the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and that the committee believes it is in the public interest to prioritize this investigation.

and

That, given the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation received a $125-million taxpayer funded payment in 2002, the committee hold two hearings into the situation at the Trudeau Foundation and report it's findings to the House, and that the witnesses will not include elected members of parliament or Trudeau Family members.

That's my understanding of what we agreed to. It's not just my understanding, but that's on the public record. We had started that.

With regard to the motion introduced today, we are not debating it in substance, but we are looking at the amendment. Regardless, the point stands that we are off track. We could be doing the work of this committee, but instead we're looking at matters that are very problematic, and they've been mentioned already.

With that in mind, I move that we adjourn debate, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Clerk, could you call that vote, please?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

I will adjourn this debate, but members cannot go anywhere, because we're now going to go in camera to do line-by-line study. I'm just going to check with the clerk on that, but don't move.

The debate is adjourned.

There is no other committee business before this committee, so I'm going to propose we now move to line-by-line, as we were supposed to do today. I'm going to suspend this public meeting and we will reconvene in a few minutes as the full committee in camera.

We are suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]