Public Accounts Committee on April 24th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We received a letter from the Auditor General, who provided very reasonable grounds for not being able to provide further details about what happened and what is happening at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

Even though another committee is looking into this, I feel other stakeholders will need to analyze this very important issue.

I'd also like to point out that, as a result of the motion we just passed, if our request to the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct an audit were to be done properly, it would still take several months. The public has a vested interest in knowing more about the situation as soon as possible.

This motion is necessary for the public to have access to detailed answers and information, which will be presented to the committee, to understand what really happened at the Trudeau Foundation in terms of relationships, missed reimbursements and possible interference.

The public deserves to know this, and we are their representatives. In my opinion, this motion was necessary.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank committee members for passing the motion introduced this morning.

I believe this motion addresses my colleagues' concerns. The Canada Revenue Agency has all the means and all the tools to investigate and identify issues, whether it's an inappropriate situation, donations or the foundation's structure.

However, I'm concerned about our committee's approach, because we proceed differently than other committees. We work closely with facts and current events. Therefore, we need to let the agencies do their work, including the Auditor General of Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency. We will review their work afterwards, as they are responsible for answering the questions.

Our committee does not conduct baseline studies, and rightly so, because other committees that are more concerned with current events can answer questions of a political nature.

The committee can analyze procedures calmly and with some detachment, to ensure that the process is working properly. Otherwise, we ourselves will be interfering, as it were, in the activities and investigations of the officers appointed by Parliament to do this kind of work.

Therefore, I don't agree with this motion. I believe that comes as no surprise. We need to be careful about this sort of thing, otherwise we're going to undermine the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' mandate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It is always inspiring to see the gymnastics that my colleagues across the way engage in to try to avoid accountability. I'm sure none of them are being intentionally misleading, but they may have received some faulty information.

The ethics committee is not undertaking anything like a stand-alone study on what happened to the Trudeau Foundation. They are merely including—from what I understand—two witnesses from the Trudeau Foundation to comment on their broader look at election interference. That is very different from what I think is required here, which is an investigation of what happened to the Trudeau Foundation. No parliamentary committees conduct investigations. They seek to answer important questions about public expenditure and the activities and responsibilities of government institutions.

If we're going to see another one-and-a-half-hour gymnastics show from the government's side, then so be it. I'm very proud to be supporting this motion, and I think it's appropriate. It fits squarely within the mandate of this committee and the work required to get to the bottom of what happened at the Trudeau Foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm looking for speakers if there are any.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues for another important motion.

I think there are three principles for me that we should answer in this discussion today. One is—which I accept—the principle that committees are masters of their own will. In particular, issues that are the most important to the members are the most important to me, as a matter of fact, given our collegiality.

We just passed a motion that I think is a good one. It calls on the CRA to conduct an investigation. However, I take the point the Bloc Québécois is making with regard to the great amount of time that report would take.

I'm more partial to an independent investigation by the CRA for this kind of work. It's dealing with, in particular, very detailed financial statements, I'm sure. I would prefer that the CRA investigate that. I'm sure all of you have agreed to that.

However, to understand it more correctly, Mr. Genuis, the work that we would be conducting in these meetings would be to see whether these members—or at least the members who agree to come here—have some kind of knowledge of these donations in particular. Do you think that would be the nature of the questions we'd be asking? Or would it be more in relation to how they operate, similar to ethics? What would be our objective here? Would it be to narrowly look at the $125-million taxpayer-funded payments, or could we make that broader in some respect? I need some clarity as to what we would be doing in this particular setting versus what the CRA would be doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

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

I'm happy to address that question.

The motion was intentionally written in a way that gives members broad latitude to ask the questions on their minds. I think that's suggested by the reference to the $125-million payment. It's a given that it's context. The substantive part of the motion is that “the committee hold 3 hearings into the situation at the Trudeau Foundation and report its findings to the House.”

I think a lot of questions need to be answered, broadly speaking, about the policy that underlies the relationship between this foundation and the Government of Canada. It bears the Prime Minister's name. It held a meeting in the office of his department. It had this spike of all kinds of foreign donations—many of which it has retained. It is listed in a statute as a government institution, but it's also a charity.

There are, I think, a lot of issues behind the structure and vulnerabilities associated with a foundation like this. There are a broad range of questions that I think we can and should ask regarding the vulnerabilities around the effective use of taxpayer money, accountability, oversight, risks of foreign interference, what relationships do or do not exist between ministers and the Prime Minister, how the continuing power to appoint members of the foundation that sits in the hands of the Minister of Industry could be exercised or not, and the kinds of conversations that do and don't happen between the Prime Minister and the members of his family who sit on the board. One sibling sits on the board. One is a member.

These are, I think, all different kinds of questions we could ask. I think there will be a lot of ground to cover in three hearings. I think members will have the latitude they wish to have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks to the member for that explanation.

I think it is reasonable when you put it in the light that we have the opportunity to ask broader questions. Even for the government members, I think it could be valuable as well to maybe better highlight the work the Trudeau Foundation does, because I think that's a question that many of the members have here, and it's the reason this amount of taxpayer funding is there.

The only concern I have is just that, in my own mind, there are competing interests in what items we debate here. In particular, we know that the situation with the lack of clean water on first nations reserves is deplorable, and we've recently heard that it's become significantly worse. I hope that we can find a way to strike a balance between the existing studies we should be doing, the things we should be reviewing, and the amount of time that's allocated here.

I'm not sure if the member would be open to amending the total number of meetings we could potentially have to maybe one or two, just to make it a little more lean for us, because we don't have that much time before the summer.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can briefly talk about what our calendar looks like. I'm curious as to how we can fit this in here, and it has a bearing on whether or not I agree with the total number of sittings.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll respond to that briefly, and then Mr. McCauley is next on the speakers list.

We have a busy calendar, but we could make room for these meetings. I don't see our time limit as an obstacle. My view is that this committee has work to get done, but as issues emerge, the committee should decide what its priorities are.

I've allotted time on the calendar for the outstanding reports we need to look at, as well as time to review the reports as they're produced by the team that supports this committee. I'm comfortable that we can consider these additional dates and still be on track for the committee to produce the reports we're required to do.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Mr. Desjarlais. You bring up a very good point.

I'll let Mr. Genuis speak about the number of days for this study, but on the question of clean drinking water, we just recently received a progress report. In our time here, we've often seen that every AG report is a repeat of things that haven't been properly addressed from past reports, so I think it would be perfect timing.

I'm getting a tiny bit off topic here, but I certainly support one or two days specifically for that progress report so that we or replacement MPs are not sitting here five years from now—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. McCauley, I'm just going to pull you back into this motion. We'll be happy to discuss additions to the other additions—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I am done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

—to the calendar, but I'm just going to raise relevance here.

Mr. Desjarlais, do you want the floor back? You had a proposal. I don't know if you want Mr. Genuis to ask about it or if you want to make an amendment, but I'll turn the floor back to you.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I just wanted to see what the....

I may end up just voting in favour of this motion. The only concern I have is the number of days, just in reference to the other studies that I'm hoping to have here. Mr. McCauley mentioned one of them that we've been trying to work together on and trying to get some clear answers on. I'm just looking at the number.

I agree with the nature of it and the request. I think we should be bringing these folks in, but would we have any flexibility on the number of hearings? We can do one to three, I'm saying, or perhaps one or two. Is there a critical loss if we don't bring them in for three days?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll let Mr. Genuis respond to that, and then I might have a comment.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

I'm happy to “reason together”, to quote The Godfather. Three is already fewer hearings than I wanted. I could live with two; I think one would be too few.

Maybe another way to do this is that instead of defining the number of meetings, we define the number of hours of hearings, because if we say the number of hours of hearings and a witness is available for one hour, we give the chair flexibility to have something else happen in the same meeting.

Another option would be that if a witness is able to get an extra hour, we could do three hours of hearings together, so maybe we could say as a compromise that the committee would hold five hours of hearings for the situation, which would add up to two-and-a-half normal meetings.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

What's so funny, guys?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Three meetings of five hours....

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

It's four and a half hours.

My initial motion had, I think, all the witnesses we needed to hear from, and this would have been substantially longer. I feel that I've already come up with a compromise. You're asking me to meet you halfway again when I've already gone two-thirds of the way.

Anyway, Mr. Desjarlais, basically, because of the way votes will work on this committee, it comes down to you. I would strongly object to fewer than two hearings. Maybe if we define it by the number of hours instead of the number of meetings, we'll give ourselves and the chair more flexibility.

I won't propose an amendment. I'll leave it to you to propose an amendment, Mr. Desjarlais. In general terms, that would be the way I see this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me make a quick comment, Mr. Desjarlais. Then I'll turn it over to you.

One option is setting a number of hours. Members are aware that on Thursdays we are able to extend our hours as necessary. It's a perfect spot in the parliamentary calendar, because it's a low-usage time. If members prefer to set hours, whether five or six, I could endeavour to hold two meetings in that capacity, but I will look for your direction on that.

Mr. Desjarlais, you seem to have the decision here. Either it's the number of meetings—it sounds like Mr. Genuis is willing to meet you at two—or you can do hours—four, five or six. I'll turn it over to you, though.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to my opposition colleagues for striking a good balance for the work I'm interested in doing and the other work, of course, in trying to make sure that first nations people are best represented. I think striking a balance of two meetings is reasonable.

Kelly, you mentioned one meeting, but if we're all amicable to two, I would prefer one or two on this. I for sure want to have this happen, considering the comments made by Mr. Genuis. I'm in favour of voting for this.

We can maybe hear some comments from the government members, the Liberal members, on whether they'd be amicable to two meetings. I think it's reasonable considering that he did start at five. I think two are fine. Honestly, I think we can get to the work we need to do with two meetings.

I'd be prepared to move an amendment to Mr. Genuis's motion to move it to two hearings.