Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2023

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

I said, “I move”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Oh, okay. I missed that. I thought it was a suggestion. In fact, you're moving to adjourn this debate.

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

“Move” was, I thought, pronounced.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right.

Could you take the roll call on that, Mr. Clerk? This is to, once again, adjourn debate on this motion and the amendment.

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

It is to proceed to the other item, which has the effect of adjourning. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

How do you want to proceed, Mr. Fragiskatos? I guess you tied it all together.

I'm going to check with the clerk, as well. Hold on.

Mr. Fragiskatos, are you looking to adjourn debate and move us into line-by-line?

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

I move to proceed to the consideration of draft reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. That's what I understood, and that's what we're going to do. The effect of this would be to end this debate and then move us in camera to discuss the reports line by line.

We have a tie. I vote to continue the debate.

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

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am disappointed that we are not moving on to the draft reports, because by my count, I think we're at five draft reports that we have yet to review, and I think there are even more on the way. That is the work of this committee: the producing and tabling of reports to Parliament.

I must also address the remarks by Mr. Genuis regarding the Trudeau Foundation and that it's somehow a vehicle of the government. I find that horrendous. From my knowledge, that was a foundation that was established by Parliament after due debate, votes and that kind of thing, for the purpose of furthering education and exchanges on the part of young people, and it holds the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau because, quite frankly, that is a name that resonates with young people.

I must say that the people in the municipality of Saint-Rémi, in my riding, are very proud that the Trudeau family had its beginnings in their region. In fact, at Pierre Elliott Trudeau's request, he was buried in a very modest cemetery in Saint-Rémi. This is a source of pride for our people. Half of them are related to the Trudeau family, but not everyone shares Pierre Elliott Trudeau's views. That said, the reason we're here is to talk about the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

My colleague is trying to draw a direct connection to Mr. Trudeau's son, but the son is not the father. The reason people chose the name “Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation” is because it's a well-known name, like John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier or Lester B. Pearson. These are all long-gone historical figures, but I think everyone will agree with me that their names still mean something.

Is it always a good idea to do this? In some cases, we've had to make readjustments after new information came out. It's always possible to give an organization or foundation a new name. The fact remains, however, that the purpose, mission and raison d'être of the organization or foundation remain the same.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he is no longer involved with the Foundation, which is absolutely correct. This meets the criteria of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has set his ties with the Foundation aside.

Those who are interested in anything to do with the Trudeau family could have listened to the testimony of Alexandre Trudeau, who testified before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, if memory serves.

So, for those who are curious and want to know all about the Trudeau family, it's a family that has played a very important role in our history and our political evolution. Of course, there are other foundations named after Conservative figures. I could ask my colleague to tell us about them, but I wouldn't go that far. Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've said this, but I myself was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, in the days of Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, and I took part in a number of activities. I loved the work of Flora MacDonald, for example, and I could support a foundation named after her. She was a truly remarkable woman.

The point is that there are values and contributions that go beyond partisanship. One day, there might even be the name of a Bloc Québécois leader. I'm always impressed by how my Bloc Québécois colleagues participate in parliamentary debates. They know the rules very well. It's a laudable way of contributing to our democracy. I always tell my fellow citizens how active my Bloc Québécois colleagues are in Parliament and how much they enjoy coming here to Ottawa to engage in debate in our beautiful federal Parliament. It's a compliment. Whether we are debating human rights or the environment, we're entitled to different points of view. Of course, the same goes for our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, with whom we also share progressive values. Jack Layton was a great Canadian.

So, whether we want to honour any one of these figures, Parliament might consider doing do at some point, but it shouldn't involve any partisanship. When a foundation chooses a certain name, it's a badge of honour of sorts. It's because it wants to represent the same values as the person who bore that name, which is perfectly fine.

Now, is it important that people feel the foundation is fulfilling its accountability obligations regarding the source of its donations, the execution of its mandate and its compliance with laws and regulations, and that its activities are beyond reproach? Yes, and there's a reason we have agencies to monitor and investigate all of this. These agencies can call for corrective action, impose fines and go as far as laying more serious charges.

In the beginning, Parliament had no framework for investigations. It was in response to very difficult situations that governments, both Liberal and Conservative, saw fit to set up first one agency, and then others followed. These agencies were given the mandate and power to conduct confidential investigations, which would later made public if they uncovered something important with regard to protecting the public. One of these agencies is the Canada Revenue Agency.

On this committee, I prefer to work with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, which has nearly 600 professionals with all the skills needed to conduct proper investigations.

My colleague said that the Auditor General had been asked to investigate foreign donations. However, she is not in a position to conduct such an investigation, as it is not part of her mandate. She therefore rightly refused to undertake one.

My colleagues still have questions and have brought up the Canada Revenue Agency. We've already heard testimony from officials, including Mr. Bob Hamilton, Commissioner of Revenue and Chief Executive Officer of the Agency. They've assured us they have the tools they need to follow up on a request to investigate, for example, the solicitation of donations and revenues by a foundation or charity, or an individual's tax returns. They know exactly why they're there.

Are we aware of everything they do? No, and with good reason. Our job is to ask ourselves whether duly mandated public servants have the tools they need to carry out their responsibilities. We're not there to do the work for them; they're the ones who have to do it. We're lucky to have such professional people, who are respected and recognized around the world. Witnesses have told us that organizations in other countries often seek advice from these professionals and ask them to share their best practices.

We can therefore be proud of the institutions that have been duly established by our democracy and that work for the well-being of all Canadians.

I think we're still talking about Report 27. We asked the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate, and it was absolutely the right thing to do, because the officials had assured us directly that, if we made a request, we would receive some sort of response. They couldn't confirm anything, and I know some of our colleagues would like to know everything about everything, but we had no reason not to believe them.

If there was another situation where people were telling us that they had reported a problem with an organization to the Agency, but the organization was carrying on and the Agency wasn't doing its job, then we'd be in a position to ask the officials outright what they were doing. This committee would probably not be the one questioning them, because I think there are other committees better equipped to work directly with the Agency. However, in such a case, we can certainly work with the Auditor General, who has a mandate to oversee what goes on in all agencies and departments, regardless of the work they do. She and her team choose whatever programs or activities they want to examine, sometimes under a specific theme, and then publish reports that are scrutinized by everyone.

There are press briefings where the media is out in full force. The reports make headlines for a period of time, and rightly so, because we remember the studies the Auditor General has done in the past on systemic shortcomings in some agencies and departments. Take Indigenous Services, for example, where there were major shortcomings. I was very reassured to know that the mandate for the audit had been passed on to the Auditor General by her predecessor, Mr. Ferguson, one of your colleagues from New Brunswick, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ferguson told us how much of a priority it was for him to get to the bottom of this. We also know that it remains a major priority for our NDP colleague, Mr. Desjarlais.

It follows that we have work to do on some very basic issues. Instead of duplicating the work of an agency or another committee, our committee should work efficiently and ensure that Canadians get value for their money. Let me remind you that our committee has reports that have yet to be published and tabled in the House, and they're piling up. In my opinion, the committee's priority should be to do the job it was mandated to do by Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Shanahan.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In fact, I'll yield to Ms. Yip, and then I'll speak after her.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Yip, go ahead.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My colleague, Mrs. Shanahan, has brought up a valid point about this being the former prime minister's name on the foundation. It really is such an honour to remember our former prime minister. In fact, because of him, my family has always been a fan of the former prime minister. Because of him, our entire family has always been in support of him and his work.

The foundation describes itself as independent and non-partisan. I don't believe we've really looked into the type of work, the excellent work that it does. Lately, the whole process has been really politicized, and that's unfortunate. The foundation does amazing work. It helps to fund and promote academic and public interest research, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Yip, I'm going to interrupt you.

The debate is on the amendment to the motion. Mr. Genuis did open the door with regard to the discussion on the Trudeau Foundation. Mrs. Shanahan addressed that at length. I would ask you to focus on the amendment to the motion, please. That is the discussion at hand here.

Thank you.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Well, I don't believe we really need to go into that amendment. I feel that—

[An hon. member]

Let's vote.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

No. I'm not done yet.

We don't need to repeat what's already been done here. We should really focus on the work at hand. We have a busy schedule, and there's not that much time left. I've said this before. There are a number of reports that haven't been done. We don't want that sliding into the fall. After all, Canadians expect us to review the Auditor General's reports. In fact, some of the newer reports, which we were supposed to look at, don't even make this term's schedule. In fact, some of the reports are now being placed into the fall.

I don't believe these additional motions are very helpful to what we actually do on this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I will make a quick comment. Mr. Desjarlais has raised some good points here, and he's looking for answers to his questions. I'm not sure, and I won't speak for Mr. Desjarlais, but I don't think needlessly talking around it is helpful to address his concerns and perhaps win his vote.

Mr. Fragiskatos, on that note, I'll turn it back to you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of points. One is directly on the amendment.

Mr. Genuis is excited that I'm talking about the amendment. We've all been talking about the amendment, whether or not my Conservative friends on the other side recognize that. All of the points have related back to that amendment, as you've seen, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the amendment, there's an unintended consequence here, and that is something I pointed out before, but let me be more specific. This is taking us away, again, from the vital work of the committee. We are slated to study—I hope it's not going to be interrupted entirely—connectivity in rural and remote areas. It's something that I know Conservative colleagues have raised in the past, quite rightly. It is something that is impacting the country. I don't come from a rural area, Mr. Chair, but just outside London, Ontario, there is a huge agricultural region, very rural, and connectivity continues to be a challenge. The government has, I think, made very important steps in this direction in terms of ensuring greater connectivity. I think we're getting there, but I would like to work on that. I know that certainly colleagues on this side feel the same way. I hope colleagues on the other side feel that way as well.

In addition, I see that we're slated to look at access to safe drinking water in first nations communities. I think this is a moral obligation, in addition to being a parliamentary obligation.

Again, we've spent a lot of time on this amendment. I've made the point before that I don't see its value in terms of helping this motion become stronger or in line with an outcome that would ensure that public servants do not break the law. It is having another unintended effect, of course, and that is delaying us from our work.

That's the point I wanted to make, Mr. Chair, in general terms, again, on the unintended consequence of our colleague's amendment.

I do want a point of clarification, though, Mr. Chair. I'll ask Mr. Desjarlais if he wishes to go on the record again. I'd want more information on what exactly he's aiming at and what his concerns are. He mentioned the Fraser Institute, for example. It's an interesting point. Perhaps I've missed it, but what is the thinking behind what he's raising? Again, Mr. Genuis himself admitted that it's interesting. To me, that shows an openness to what Mr. Desjarlais is saying.

If Mr. Desjarlais could expand on the point that he raised earlier, Mr. Chair, that would be very appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, I'm going to ask you to expand on that without repeating. I do want to try to keep this moving forward.

I will just highlight again that I'd ask everyone to refer to both the amendment and the motion itself. This is a request for documents. Discussing broader topics is something we can certainly do, but it's suited for either other committee business or subcommittee business.

It's over to you, sir.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

This is how I see the order of events in my mind. When we say “in relation to the motion”, the motion we're talking about is the motion that was passed, of course, in a consensus fashion, tabled by me and the New Democratic Party, to look into foreign interference as it relates to the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation. Events that have transpired since then have left it so that we have little recourse to find ways to get to the bottom of foreign interference.

Foreign interference, to me, is the most important aspect of this investigation, Mr. Chair. It's not that we find ways to create an affiliation between the Liberal Party and the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation. That's a partisan interest that I definitely have an appetite to pursue, but of course our job here is to make sure that we get to the bottom of foreign interference. At least, that's how I enter this discussion, with the hope that we'd have support towards that.

Looking at foreign interference in Canada and the fact that we have an example—the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation may be one where foreign interference has taken place by way of donations—it is not unreasonable to suggest that there are other organizations in Canada that are part and parcel of this industry. I say “industry” because, in my perspective—or at least in the media's perspective—it's not only the Liberal Party but also the Conservative Party, maybe even the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois. I think it's incumbent upon us that we take that kind of fairness approach if we're going to be using this kind of power to have the CRA give us documents, the power to secure and second documents of a private organization.

I do accept what Mr. Genuis has said in relation to the unique nature of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, but I also believe that there are unique aspects to other organizations that have found ways around that. For the benefit of a study, should we really be interested as a committee in tackling foreign interference, we would take all available information toward that study, should we have confirmation that the Auditor General, which we do, does not have a mandate to pursue this, or the CRA. As evidenced by our investigation thus far, the CRA has been clear that they have to hold an independent aspect towards this throughout their investigation.

Those things together, Mr. Chair, all of those factors together lead me to the position that we will not get the answers we are seeking in relation to our request for clarity on foreign interference, should we not take the opportunity to expand our investigation.

If we really want to get down to that, why not take the opportunity right now? I understand there could be fear by the Conservatives to expand this, but Mr. McCauley made a credible argument at the very beginning that if the Conservatives were to form government, they would be so happy and open to having this investigation done. Because we're dealing with such an important issue as foreign interference, why would we wait for an election to do that, considering how sensitive this process is?

Since there's been a filibuster here at the table on this pretty much all day, it's my suggestion that, with the 15 minutes we have remaining, Mr. Chair, we try to sort out what kind of possible amendments we can make to this motion that would get to the bottom of what we want to see here, which is foreign interference.

If I could bring the attention of the committee back to how important the study really is to the transparency of how organizations participate in Canada, that would be my objective, but I'm not okay just going down a random witch hunt on one organization if we're not going to get the results that we need on a study on foreign interference.

I'm sure many of my colleagues around the table would see that clearly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, I am going to give you the floor, but I'm going to press that we stay focused. I think you can do that. Thank you.

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

I'm very focused, Mr. Chair.

I move to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We'll do the roll call, please.

As it is a tie, I'm also going to cast my vote to end this debate, committee members. We can come back to it another time.

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

Let me turn to another item that I would like to discuss with you all. It involves our meeting a week from today.

This will also allow members to meet amongst themselves about next steps for this motion in particular, because I'm sure it's going to come back to the floor. I'm going to be more vigilant in the next meeting about staying on that amendment. If you want to have discussions amongst yourselves about next steps, please have them. When we come back to this motion, it is going to be on the amendment and the motion itself. Of course, members can talk at length on that, but it will be a focused discussion when this comes back.

Next, we have a meeting scheduled for a week from today with individuals who have involvement with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. I regret to inform you all that three have declined. They include the Right Honourable David Johnston, Mr. Edward Johnson and Mr. Mel Cappe.

I'm looking for your instructions or direction on this, or comments on how we should proceed.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thanks, Chair.

It's frustrating that we're not getting documents because of filibusters and we're not getting witnesses wanting to show up either. We have a job to do, to try to get to the bottom of what has been happening at the Trudeau Foundation. We're not getting documents and we're not getting witnesses. That is repeated stonewalling, which is enabled, it seems, by the government and also the people involved. I will try again to help us get to the bottom of this and we'll see if we have more success on this.

Chair, I would like to move that in relation to its study of the Trudeau Foundation, the committee authorize the chair to summon witnesses on its behalf. I think we can trust you to exercise that power judiciously and to try to ease up to that, but we have one week. It seems there is almost nobody who has agreed to appear, so empowering our chair to act on our behalf in this regard will ensure we hear from the witnesses whom members have requested to hear from.

Thank you.