Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

You are correct. At this point, we have no one willing to appear.

Mr. Desjarlais, your hand is up. You have the floor, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Hold on one second, Mr. Desjarlais.

Mr. Genuis's motion is on the floor. It is in order and it is debatable.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Sorry, can I speak to two things, Mr. Chair?

First, could we have the motion in writing and in both official languages, for Nathalie?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Sure. We will endeavour to get it out in the meantime, and we will have it read out again. Interpretation, I'm sure, will assist with that.

I'll go over to you, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I agree, first of all, with the comments made by Mr. Genuis.

I disagree, of course, with other forces—that force being yourself, Mr. Chair. We can go back to three minutes ago and know you broke a tie in this vote. I want to be clear that as the Conservative chair in your case, Mr. Chair, it would be yourself who broke the tie there. I want to make certain the facts are all very clear.

On the actual motion itself, when we do get the translation back, I think it would also be important that we maybe even find a way, in the original motion that Mr. Genuis just read out, to clarify the first fact you mentioned and state that it is because we received a no to our invitation that we have this motion. I think it would be important to the narrative of that motion. That's, of course, extraordinary power that we're going to be using only because of the adverse reaction of those witnesses to coming here. I think the reluctance here is an important piece to demonstrate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, I'm sorry. I noticed you a few minutes ago, and I apologize for keeping you in suspense with your hand up. You will have the floor.

Colleagues, I am going to look for your permission to adjourn this meeting at one o'clock. You're welcome to reject that, in which case I'll turn the chair over to Ms. Yip, but I do have to turn my attention to my riding after this.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Chair, please let me extend my good wishes for everyone in your riding. As you know, I have family there as well, and I'm in communication with them as well. Yes, this is very disturbing.

On the summons, again, this is not something that we typically have in this committee. It does seem like a drastic step, so I would like to understand more about the reasons. Sometimes the witnesses provide reasons as to why they don't wish to appear, and typically committees try to work with witnesses around those reasons, because we would, of course, prefer to have willing witnesses rather than otherwise.

That's a question that I have for the clerk. I want to have a better understanding of whether there is more of a step-by-step process rather than going dramatically to what I believe is usually the final step in a step-by-step process. It's clear to me that we need more information and discussion on this step.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, let me respond quickly, and then you can take the floor.

I won't get into particulars, but it has been frustrating. We had one witness who we were told was away, at which point I changed the meeting date by a week, and the response came back “no”. We made every effort to change our schedule to accommodate this witness, but when we did so, the response was one I had not expected. Another witness simply did not respond, and another just indicated that they had nothing to contribute due to a change in role.

That's it in a nutshell. I'm happy to go back to them with your direction.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of us take parliamentary committees very seriously, and when witnesses are called, there has to be a seriousness attached to that; however, a move to summon witnesses, as this motion calls for, I think is a giant leap in the wrong direction. I don't see the need for a formal summons at this point.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, you can go back again. Not everybody will understand the nature of parliamentary committees and their importance in terms of our overall governance, if I can put it that way. A summons at this point in time doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I can also recall, Chair, not on this committee but on previous committees where something similar transpired, that a point of clarification was resent to the individual or individuals the committee wished to hear from. Things are resolved at that point in time without a summons, without anything like that.

We also have to think long and hard about what kind of precedent this committee sets, of course, to other committees. If we are going to be summoning witnesses left and right, it doesn't really make for a co-operative, good relationship between parliamentary committees and prospective witnesses. I can only recall once in my time as a member of Parliament when I've seen a formal summons issued. As I said, it represents an extraordinary step, one that, even based on what you just read, Chair, I still do not think is warranted at this point in time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My frustration today is that we've really gotten nothing done. We have tried to request documents related to our investigation into the Trudeau Foundation. Liberals have filibustered it. We're now trying to create a mechanism by which we can get witnesses for our investigation into the Trudeau Foundation. The Liberals have excuses.

I don't have a great appetite to go past our scheduled time. Either the government is interested in doing this or not, and we have to keep coming back to it in subsequent meetings.

I will say very clearly to Mr. Fragiskatos that the motion I put forward does not summon witnesses. It authorizes the chair to summon witnesses on our behalf to ensure that we get witnesses by next week. I suspect what the chair will do is follow up with these witnesses. He will inform them that the committee has authorized him to summon them and that it is important that they provide more serious explanations or come. This motion provides the chair with the means to ensure that we have witnesses related to the Trudeau Foundation. It does not jump the gun. It does not prescribe that the chair will immediately jump to a summons. It is right and reasonable that the chair might try to engage in some dialogue first.

However, if the committee insists on prescribing every single step, I would submit to you that this is an obvious delay tactic. We don't come back until Thursday. If we decide today that we're going to ask the chair to send a letter and then we don't get a response to the letter by Thursday, then we have to have another motion to order the summons. I suspect we'll see more of this delay tactic from the government.

Again, either members are willing to help us get documents or witnesses, or both, or government members are continuing to put up roadblocks. The motion is clear. It does not summon witnesses; it gives the power to the chair to summon witnesses as may be required to ensure that we hear from witnesses.

I hope we're able to go to a vote on this today. If not, again, the posture of the government will be clear as they continue to disrupt this committee's ability to investigate the Trudeau Foundation. Paradoxically, they say it's because we have all these other things to study. Well, if we have all these other things to study, great, let's get to votes on these motions in a reasonable time frame so that we can complete the business we have in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Fragiskatos, and then Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

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

I'll yield to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, and then I'll speak, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right.

You have the floor, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné.

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

I just wanted to point out that I'm in complete agreement with what my colleague Mr. Genuis just said. It's a motion that gives our chair all the flexibility he needs to call witnesses, if necessary. It's important that we get to the bottom of this matter.

We all voted in support of this study on the Trudeau Foundation and the witnesses need to agree to come. I would remind you that the list of witnesses was put together with the input of all MPs here. So I don't see why we shouldn't authorize the committee chair to talk to the witnesses and tell them that they could be called. That would surely help convince them to come and testify.

I therefore support the motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor again.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I did not register my concern and regret to hear what's happening in your riding. I know Ms. Yip and Ms. Bradford will certainly feel that way. I don't know that they're on the speakers list, but I'm going to speak for them. I've been to New Brunswick. I've been to your riding. It is a beautiful place, and I hope everything is all right in the end.

Chair, I don't sense that we're going to get resolution. I emphasize the point that I made before. I don't see that it's any different from what Mr. Genuis pointed to in nuance. I still maintain the point.

With that in mind, and knowing how difficult of a day it is for you, I move that we adjourn the meeting.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

On division, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.