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.