Public Accounts Committee on May 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I am happy to direct Mr. Fragiskatos to speak to the amendment, which I'm sure he will do. I'll turn the floor over to him.

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

Mr. Chair, for me.... You allowed me to elaborate on my concerns with respect to the substantive motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm sure you're going to continue to do that while couching it as the amendment as well. You're going to do both at the same time, and I'm sure you have the skill to do that.

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

Yes. I know colleagues want to share more information, but the motion this committee put forward a few weeks ago on the Canada Revenue Agency and the Trudeau foundation is, I think, a strong motion. I want to see the amendment in written form. I don't know if it's been sent out yet. I think the clerk is still looking at that.

I will consider it. I know colleagues had their hands up as well, so let me see it in written form, and then I can comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

I have a little speaking list going here.

Mr. McCauley, you're next. Then we will go to Mr. Genuis and Mrs. Shanahan.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll hand it to Mr. Genuis, because I was going to address Mr. Fragiskatos's comments, but not on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mrs. Shanahan, you moved right up the speaking order, so it's over to you, please. I would ask you, now that Mr. Fragiskatos has had some opening comments, to address your comments towards the amendment to the motion, please.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'll keep this brief.

This motion is related to the motion from meeting 59. You will go to the minutes, Mr. Chair. It's important that it's in the motion, with the reference to Standing Order 108(2). The motion of April 24 was passed not only to get the work done, but to get the request on the record. I'm not usually on the committee, but unless you tell me otherwise, we haven't heard any news. So my amendment is to make sure that the Canada Revenue Agency can do its job.

I will respond to my colleague with a question, Mr. Chair: Isn't the Standing Committee on Public Accounts here to ask questions, shed light and make sure that people are reassured? I was involved in the community sector for a long time. You have to set up organizations, you have to be accountable, you have to answer questions from the Canada Revenue Agency. Honestly, an organization can get nicked, but when there are reasonable grounds...

We've been talking about this for weeks. In fact, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we opened a door in November, and since then a lot of things have been added. Initially, we just wanted to make sure we prevented interference in our elections; then, one thing led to another and we're still learning more and more.

That's why, Mr. Chair, we shouldn't be shy about getting to the bottom of this. The Canada Revenue Agency has an obligation to do so. This amendment, in my view, does not have to be judged, insofar as it allows us to ensure that our request will be done properly.

Unless there are others who wish to speak, I would suggest that we adopt it so that we can debate the motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We have one other participant.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our colleague for her explanation.

However, for me, the problem remains.

It is, Mr. Chair, that the amendment, with great respect, does not overcome the challenges of the motion. For me, it largely repeats what the motion is calling for, but perhaps in another way. That's the challenge I have with the amendment. It's because the amendment does not recognize the challenges here with respect to the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act, which for our side are the starting point on Mr. McCauley's motion. I don't see how our discussion is advanced with the amendment.

For that reason—and I don't speak for all of my colleagues, but I think I do in this case—there's a real problem with it.

I think others will have....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There's a list.

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

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

I would like to hear from my colleague again. She referred to a report, and I wonder why.

In principle, I agree with asking the CRA to do its job. We know that the CRA does not move quickly and it takes time. My colleague mentioned the date of April 24, but obviously the process will not start right away. In addition, it is not known how many questions the CRA has received and needs to answer.

There is no problem in terms of the public domain, but it is the agency that handles the confidential items and has the documents requested in the motion. The CRA is responsible under the law to do the work it is asked to do. We say we don't trust the agency and we don't feel that its officials work at our pace or to our liking. Yet we don't know what their workload is. The recent strike certainly may have caused delays.

It is important for the agency to maintain its independence in order to maintain taxpayer confidence in its impartiality with respect to accountability and accounting. I am referring to reasons that would not be consistent with the proper, legal, and blame-free use of public money.

While the amendment is intended to keep the essence of the motion, I believe it is duplicative and, furthermore, inconsistent with the agency's work. We normally deal with the Auditor General's reports. This is somewhat similar. The Office of the Auditor General has access to all the documents needed to conduct a study of a department or agency. In fact, recently, we began reviewing reports from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which are the result of months of work by experts, professionals and other officials.

I have had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts since 2015 or so. Part of our job is to act on the recommendations of the Auditor General or the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, for example, when they find deficiencies in certain work within their mandate.

The purpose of a management audit is to see if we got our money's worth. After the Auditor General makes her recommendations to us, we call in officials from the appropriate department to ask them questions. We don't need to do the audit work because it has already been done.

You will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chair, but our committee files the most reports, regardless of the session of Parliament. Our role as a public accounts committee is not to monitor the day-to-day, but to review policies and programs as they are being implemented. We are able to do that review with the assistance and support of the independent Office of the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and then we make comments and recommendations.

The report is made public twice. When the Auditor General tables her report, there is a lot of talk about it and it always makes headlines. The Auditor General's role is to find the flaws and problems in all departments, and to suggest ways to improve. Whether it's immediately or three to six months later, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts does a study and invites public servants to appear before it. Sometimes improvements have already been made. Departments can share with us what actions they have taken since the release of the Auditor General's Report.

In the 42nd Parliament, we required public servants to report to us on their action plans and measures to be taken, and I am very proud of that. It's far from perfect, but I'm glad that our committee made sure we got answers from departments, with the help of analysts, who can go and get internal reports, saving us from having to do the same work again. We always want to see things progress.

I remember the case of the CRA call centre during the 42nd Parliament. We need to continue to monitor the situation closely. There had been increasingly long and unacceptable response times at that call centre. Among other reasons, there was a lack of equipment and resources to adequately respond to taxpayer calls. We have taken stock of this and this work is ongoing.

However, I again come back to the fact that we were not the ones who looked at the data on survey responses, long wait times for responses, dropped call rates, and so on.

We were not the ones who did that study. It was the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, under the late Michael Ferguson, the Auditor General at the time. The committee felt that the situation at the telephone exchange was unacceptable, and they were very critical of the CRA.

Today, as I said earlier, any Canadian has the right to raise an issue, to point out an irregularity, to ask the CRA to investigate. It's legitimate to ask the CRA to look into it. It is the CRA's job to do that, just as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, does. It is not up to the government or us as parliamentarians to tell the RCMP that a situation is illegal and to go and arrest someone. This separation between political power and the management of our agencies is necessary. They existed before we arrived and will continue their work after we leave.

Therefore, I disagree with the proposal to provide the committee with documents that are normally in the CRA offices. Some documents are made public, with good reason, because taxpayers need to be informed. I am thinking in particular of the T3010, Registered Charity Information Return. This information is already public and available because people have a right to check the status of foundations and charities, as there are regulatory differences between the two. If we give...

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I am listening carefully to my colleague, but I would like to focus on the wording of the motion for the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct an investigation.

I would also like to know if my colleague agrees or disagrees with what had already been passed, so that we can then move on, because time is running out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mrs. Shanahan, you made some comments.

Ms. Gaudreau is the next speaker.

Could you please finish your comments, Mrs. Shanahan?

It will be Ms. Gaudreau's turn after that.

I also have Ms. Bradford on my list of speakers.

I see Mr. Genuis, briefly, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a fairly simple motion that's requesting documents for the committee to look at as part of its ongoing study. As we have other reports we wanted to get to today as well, I wonder if the Liberals could indicate whether they plan on talking out the clock for the full time of the committee or if they're going to allow us to go to a vote today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, this amendment is rather straightforward. Once we deal with this, we'll deal with the motion.

I think the government members are indirectly making their position known, but I won't speculate any further. It's not for me to ask how they're going to vote. We're talking it through.

Ms. Shanahan, you still have the floor.

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

Yes, it's unclear to me, because Ms. Gaudreau's amendment makes a request that I find reasonable, in that we can ask the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate. There's nothing stopping us from doing that. However, the motion also assumes that we are asking to conduct the investigation ourselves, which I feel is contradictory. I don't believe it's the committee's job to do that work and that could be very disturbing for Canadians watching us right now, to think that a parliamentary committee—

I will leave it to someone else to discuss all the issues that come with asking officials to breach the Privacy Act so they can disclose confidential information. That would put the officials at risk legally and criminally, and it could even land them in jail. They are public servants. They are honest people.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This is the second time I've said this. I was not present at meeting No. 59 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where this motion was adopted. What we can analyze in the end is opposition to this motion.

If I may, I'd like to specify that my goal was to be mindful of the deadlines in the motion. I just want to make sure that we're on the right track.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I totally agree with you. The motion received unanimous support and now you want to reinforce the decision made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I believe that Mrs. Shanahan is aware of that. The floor is still hers. If she wants answers, she can simply end her speaking time.

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

Can I get exact details about this motion from April 24?

It's normal for us to ask officials to provide written responses.

Maybe my memory is failing me, it does happen. I would like the clerk or analysts to provide me with the correct information.

Asking for an answer is not the same as requesting documents that are usually confidential. They are really two different things.

May I ask the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to turn it over to Madame Gaudreau to respond. The amendment that she has put forward is merely, as I said, to reinforce the vote that this committee took. For an answer, you'll have to turn to the deputy.

I will hear you, but I'm not turning the floor back to you. If you have a point, it's going to Madame Gaudreau.

Do you have a question for me?

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

Yes, it's a question for you, Chair.

Can we hear exactly what the statement is that Madame Gaudreau is referring to that was adopted on April 24?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If you could, send to all members the motion that was passed by this committee some weeks ago.

In the meantime, I will hear Madame Gaudreau, please.