Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mister Sidhu.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, it’s your turn.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

My colleague was absent when this motion was adopted, whose specific purpose was to study the Trudeau Foundation. That’s precisely the mandate Canadians and Quebecers have given us: to study in depth what took place at the Trudeau Foundation and to determine who received public funding. This work is exactly in line with the Committee’s mandate and objectives. So I thank my colleague for his comments, but they weren’t particularly relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have a brief question for you, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné. Can you respond to Ms. Shanahan? She was asking that our clerk contact her counterpart at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for more information.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

In order for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to send us the documents, we must first make a request. That’s the first step, which we are currently taking. Once the other committee has received our request, it will be able to send us the documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm not sure who is next. I believe it's Mr. Fragiskatos, and then Mrs. Shanahan.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Our colleague across the way used the terms “odd” and then “strange” to describe our opposition to what Madame Sinclair-Desgagné has raised. There's nothing strange or odd, with all due respect, Mr. Chair, in having a challenge with this committee looking at documents that are already being looked at by another committee.

I think Canadians send us to this place to do serious work and not redundant work. That committee will be able to look at the relevant documents and draw conclusions based on those documents. I think we should be doing the important work that has been set out at this committee. Generally speaking—in particular, when this committee has not been politicized—we have been able to complete serious work in a timely way that has allowed us to live up to the mandate of the committee.

Unfortunately, yes, arguments have been raised in relation to a motion that our side did support, but there was nothing in that motion that said we would be carrying out redundant work. Another committee is doing this work already. I have a real challenge with, again, seeing the point of this motion, with all due respect. What is the efficacy behind going ahead and supporting this particular motion? I don't see the relevance. I don't see how it would help our work. I don't see how it would help to add to the motion that was originally put forward and supported by this side as well with respect to the Trudeau Foundation.

If I recall the original motion, we set aside two meetings to look at the issue. I don't have that in front of me, Mr. Chair. If you look at the amount of time we've expended on the subject—I'll be kind and I won't say “wasted”—we are eating up valuable time here that, again, could have been used to look at a range of issues as a committee.

I'll leave that there for now, Mr. Chair. I think Mrs. Shanahan had something to add too.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I believe so.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I just wanted to answer my colleague, Mr. Genuis, who is still fairly new to this committee. The way this committee works is by consensus. That is really the best way to work. Mr. McCauley knows this to be true.

Because we're acting on behalf of all Canadians and all parliamentarians, I think it is supposed to be a committee that is non-partisan and objective, where we're looking at verified reports. Our work is to.... Sometimes documents, accounting statements and so on don't get amplified the way they should, and where we are able as a committee to explore—and we have taken the committee in a direction that I find very laudable, which is studying the environment commissioner's reports, which come under the auspices of the Auditor General—we've been able to lift up those reports and amplify those very important findings and conclusions.

That is why it's important for us to have these discussions, because if we're going to take the public accounts committee in a radically different direction, I would say to my colleagues who hope to form government one day that they will be saddled with the consequences of that, and I don't think it's a very positive direction for anyone who is represented here today.

That is why I think the discussion is important. It just seems like a laundry list to me of what we're asking for, a doubling of work spilling into other mandates and, quite frankly, I have to question the motives of some members here. I don't like to be in that position, because it has not been my position on this committee in the past.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'll just say that the three of us do support this motion. I think it's important for transparency.

To Mrs. Shanahan's comment, when we are in government, I do hope we are saddled with committees that are seeking openness, transparency and justice for taxpayers' dollars.

This idea of consensus seems to be “do it the Liberal way or it's not consensus” or “do what we say or it's not consensus”. Consensus doesn't mean just what the Liberal government wants or wants to shut down.

I think if we go to a vote, you'll see that five of the members on this side from three parties support this motion. It's ridiculous to say that it's duplicating work. This is a very important issue that we're dealing with right now. It expands into other areas that we're seeing covered up by this government.

I think it's offensive to say that there are ulterior motives from our colleague from the Bloc. Her only motive that I've seen, from the day I met her, is openness and transparency for taxpayers' dollars. Coming from a Conservative, I can't think of higher praise that I can give to another member in this House. We want openness. We want to see value for money spent.

We fully support this motion. I thank her for bringing it forward and continuing to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, can you call the vote, please?

It's a tie. I'll cast my vote in favour of Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's motion. Thank you.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. McCauley, go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a couple of items, Chair. Thanks very much.

First of all, I'm going to read a motion to put on notice. I'm not going to move it right now. It is:

That, in the context of Service à la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal, a registered charity, and Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud, a registered not-for-profit, having been identified as hosting illegal Communist China police stations, and having both received over $100,000 each in funding by the government, that the committee hold at least three meetings on the issue and invite the ministers and department officials from Employment and Social Development Canada, Public Safety Canada and Canada Revenue Agency to appear before the committee and answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That is simply on notice. Thank you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes, sir.

For the second one, I'm just tabling this motion: That the committee resume consideration of the motion moved and adjourned at meeting number 64 on May 15, 2023, regarding documents from the Trudeau Foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm just going to ask you to hold on. I want to see if this is a dilatory or debatable motion. Give me one second.

It is debatable. The floor is open.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, my understanding is that the resumption of a motion is dilatory.

It's fine, but maybe we can just get clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will do that. Give me one second, please.

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

There was a miscommunication here at the head of the table.

This is a motion to resurrect Mr. McCauley's motion dealing with the tax documents, which was previously adjourned. It's not debatable. We vote to bring it back, basically, to the floor for discussion.

There's a point of order.

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

I have a point of order.

My understanding is.... Procedurally, wouldn't we go back to the Bloc amendment first?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If we get to that point, yes, that is correct. This is first to bring it back.

Mr. Clerk, could you call the roll call quickly?

There is one member who hasn’t arrived yet, but I think you can start the roll call.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Are we voting on the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, this is just to bring this debate back.

When we last debated the motion to request some of the tax filings from the Trudeau Foundation, we had a discussion around it. After some time, members voted to end that debate, but the motion wasn't defeated. This motion is to merely bring it back to discuss it here.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We have a tie. I will cast my vote to continue discussing this motion since it is on the docket.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're going to begin with the amendment to the motion.

Mr. Clerk, perhaps you can remind us where we're at.

I see Mr. Genuis, but let's hear from the clerk first.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Cédric Taquet]

Members can follow on our website the minutes of meeting number 64. You have the motion, and the amendment moved by Madame Marie-Hélène Gaudreau. I can read the motion, but the motion and the amendment are clearly worded in the minutes of that meeting.

If the committee wants, I can read the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I think it's probably a good idea as a refresher.