Evidence of meeting #69 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was foundation.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
From direct witnesses. I was also just recently provided with a very detailed account of all the events.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
It was as a result of a management crisis, a misunderstanding.
According to my notes, it appears at the outset that people were getting nervous about the story in the Globe and Mail. Almost immediately, the chairperson of the board wanted to conduct an independent inquiry, which Ms. Fournier attempted to administer on her own, which was not in keeping with governance principles, at least according to most of the lawyers on the board. They were adamant about having an independent committee made up of people from the outside.
According to the board lawyers, Ms. Fournier also accused some members of the board, including the chairperson, of being in a conflict of interest position, and suggested that they should recuse themselves. Once again, I was not a witness to this, but was very much aware of what was happening because it was in writing. When the board requested evidence or opinions from lawyers, they clammed up. As a result, there was a crisis of confidence, it must be admitted, about the fact that she was saying something very serious was happening that involved major changes in governance, which was not the case.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
That's right. I believe that the chairperson of the board will be coming to testify, and he'll be able to provide more details.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
She mentioned that she wanted an independent inquiry to be conducted by a law firm and forensic lawyers, I believe, who were not involved in the affair, and she said that she had asked the board members involved to recuse themselves, which is proper governance practice.
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
None of the directors refused to recuse themselves. On the contrary, they were trying to make an effort to introduce an independent committee of directors who had not been there at the time of these events. In the end, even in the days just prior to Ms. Fournier's resignation, the board had reached consensus on striking a committee and getting on with it.
Then all of a sudden, she resigned. I think trust had disappeared when she falsely reported the lawyer's opinions to the board. She basically wanted to install a new chairperson of the board, for reasons that were never put in writing.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Okay, I accept your reply, but it contradicts what she said.
Do you feel that she was treated appropriately when she left?
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
Right up until the very end, no one expected her to leave. The chairperson of the board thought there was a consensus on how to move forward. It was Good Friday. On Easter Monday, without any official communications between board members, all of a sudden people were resigning, as she did too.
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
In fact, everyone resigned except for three people.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Everyone left except three people.
She mentioned that she had been visited by people from IT services, who spent six hours at her home looking through all her computer equipment, which looks to me like a search. Do you know anything about that?
4:50 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
That's the first time I've heard anything about that. As there had been some duplicity and there was concern about disinformation, I think the foundation decided to take back its computers and its information.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
You mentioned earlier that you had signed for the donation in question. We understand the circumstances. However, according to Ms. Fournier, you did not have signing authority. There was no delegated authority as such. Perhaps that was done because of the name, which is another matter.
4:55 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
As I was explaining, it was a four-party contract; no one else could have signed. When the chairperson asked me to sign, I didn't see any problem with it because I signed all kinds of things all the time.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
Yes, I signed pay cheques, for example, because two signatures were required. I live near the foundation and I sometimes signed.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
When a donation comes in like that, out of left field, as it were, whatever the source may be, are there circumstances that would require donors to meet you?
4:55 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
Don't forget, as I explained, that the donation was not offered to us. It had been organized with the Université de Montréal's faculty of law. When Mr. Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens, a law professor at the faculty, came to see me on behalf of his dean, I told him that ever since the foundation had been established, all efforts to collect funds in the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau had to go through the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. We felt that we had a monopoly, but they had a truly interesting opportunity. I met him in 2014, on the 10th or the 16th of January. At that time—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Villemure's time is up.
Mr. Green, we're going to you for six minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Welcome to the committee. I will say that in a previous meeting, I attempted to not have you involved here, but you volunteered to come before the committee. You're here before us today and hopefully you are able to shed some light.
You had in your opening remarks a list of eight points. At the appropriate time, would you be willing to submit those points to this committee?
Am I correct that you probably watched the other testimony? Yes. There were a lot of statements made. Now is your opportunity to rebut some of those.
On the issue of recusal, I think that's your point six. If you could, please expand on the point of recusal and why you didn't think that was an issue.
4:55 p.m.
Member, Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
I should note that the chair, for instance, was the corporate secretary of the Power Corporation of Canada for decades. This is a man who I would say is one of the premier experts in this country in corporate governance. This is a man to whom board conduct is second nature. That was his job at one of the most meticulous private companies in this country. His sense of decorum and respect is incomparable. He's certainly a very dignified gentleman.
Immediately that there was the notion that there were these doubts, we all wanted clarity. We all wanted clarity to get out immediately that there was nothing there. Please investigate us, anyone who would want—