Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would still like to ask a couple of questions. We talked a little bit before the meeting, and I would like to hear more from my colleague.
It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is to have the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, conduct an investigation. From what we have heard, it is not necessarily to target the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. CRA officials have rightly said that they cannot point the finger at any one organization. However, last week they provided us with a good deal of information about how they operate. They said on a couple of occasions that they take care of any appeal, letter or indication of irregularity related to a tax return. They said that, for them, nothing was too big or too small.
I had the pleasure, for a few years, of working in an accountants' office. I was not an accountant myself and had no desire to become one, but I remember it was very important that we do things the right way. Sometimes there were misunderstandings or family arguments. We knew that if there was anything, a call to the CRA would provoke questions and trigger a request for an audit.
I'd like to say to the people listening that when we receive a letter from the CRA, no one here looks at the envelope for a long time before opening it. These letters are not always good news. Sometimes they are when it's a refund check, but that's not always the case.
I would still like to hear from my colleague. If the goal is to ensure that the CRA commits to an investigation, the three items in the notice of motion will not be necessary. The CRA already has that information and will do that work, as do other independent commissioners, while respecting confidentiality. I am not necessarily referring to the confidentiality of the Trudeau Foundation. Because it is a public foundation, reporting forms such as the T3010 are available on the CRA website. Anyone can find this information there.
In terms of people who contribute to the foundation, such as private donors, there certainly can be third parties. There are people who had nothing to do with it. All they wanted to do was give money to an organization that, from what I've heard, is highly respected for its work in academia, in advancing education. The foundation works with young people and researchers from all over.
I don't think it's anyone's intention here to cause other people to have to make their confidential information public. Colleagues, it is not the job of the committee to audit organizations directly, even if this one was founded by taxpayers. In some cases, the Auditor General does this, while in other cases, agencies are required by the CRA and their governance structure to hire independent auditors.
All auditors are governed by the same professional code. In addition, the standards adopted by Canada are recognized around the world.
I think the point is simply to ask the agency to do its job. We can also discuss why it can't say it's doing an audit on the Trudeau Foundation. It doesn't want to show all its cards, which I think is a good reason. It is part of the means at its disposal, and it will be able to use it during the fraud investigations, among others. As we know, you don't want to tell people you suspect that an audit is being done.
If that is the case, I think a simple letter from the committee might suffice, but we would need to have the support of all of our colleagues, since we are used to working by consensus, as we have done in other cases. We could ask the CRA to conduct a full investigation. As Mr. McCauley mentioned in reference to another case, we know very well that if there is fraudulent activity, for example, it will come out in the public sphere. If there is a problem, action must be taken and notices must be published. The purpose of all of this is to protect the public.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts tries to be neutral, because the deputation, the situation and the context can change. If we don't use a neutral work process that has the objective of protecting the public with respect to public spending, I think there may be unintended consequences, which could damage people's trust. The next time an organization is scrutinized by the CRA, it could be said that it is because the government asked for it to be done and it is not based on facts or a particular situation.
With a simple letter, we can speak up, say we have concerns and would like to take advantage of the system that the officials have described to us. Receiving a letter, a call, or any indication that something is wrong with an agency or an individual allows for follow-up.
This is what we can do if my colleagues agree.
Before I suggest anything, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this. We could withdraw the motion and adopt the amendment. That might be a way to ask the CRA to do what it has to do.
Those are the suggestions I have for now, but I will think about it a little more.
Thank you.