Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Clerk]

Madame Marie-Hélène Gaudreau moved:

That the motion be amended by adding before the words “All documents related to any audit” the following: “And, as requested by the committee in its Report No. 27 asking the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation,”.

That would be the amendment, and we are resuming debate on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

Do I have any speakers on that, please?

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, at the meeting when this amendment was introduced, it was Madame Gaudreau who was representing the Bloc. I would like to hear from Madame Sinclair-Desgagné on this motion, because the questions I brought up at that time had to do with the pertinence of this amendment to this motion. It seeks to replicate a motion that has already been passed by this committee.

I would remind colleagues and those who are following this that the motion asked the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. The committee believes it's in the public interest to prioritize this investigation. It was on that basis. At the time, I supported the motion, because it is fitting for this committee, as items of interest come to our attention, that we can ask any agency—normally we deal with the Auditor General's office—to respectfully, in their role as an independent agency.... I'll stress that, because it's not the government. Whether we're talking about the Auditor General or the Canada Revenue Agency, these are independent agencies. They are governed by professional standards. These standards are internationally recognized. It is only fitting that, if we see something we would like to bring to their notice, we can make that request. That is why we voted with that motion, because this committee works by consensus. When we have something of mutual interest, we proceed accordingly.

I'm always open to questions on whether a process, a procedure, or the implementation or execution of any of our policies.... When I say “our”, that is “our” as a federal government, not as one particular government in question. It goes to the trust and confidence Canadians have in our agencies and non-partisan public service. When there are any questions, however they come about, on any of our policies in law having to do with the collection of taxes, charitable organizations and the way our agencies function, it is paramount that these reviews take place in an impartial and objective manner.

As I said, that is why, for my part.... Even though, personally, I might not think there's a need for it—because, again, the work has been done elsewhere—in the interest of clearing the air, I think making a request of that nature is appropriate or fitting. It certainly comes under this committee's mandate, and we ask to prioritize the investigation.

Mr. Chair, as you know, we can ask many things, but it is up to the agency itself to decide what its priorities are. We heard very clearly, actually, from the officials here, that the moment they have any kind of report or red flag.... I think it's the tip line, as it's known colloquially, that Canadians can use to call the CRA and report an organization, an individual or a business that they have suspicions about, or if they feel there is something incorrect going out. In that way, all Canadians can participate in this mutual...keeping everybody sharp and in line. The officials assured us that when they get that kind of tip, it is investigated.

Indeed, it was also on that basis that.... For my part, it's already been brought to their attention and they're already looking at the documentation. They're able to work under confidentiality provisions and so on, to work in a way that is not unduly injurious to third parties, whether directly or indirectly. Another thing we have to be wary of is that investigations become witch hunts and they're conducted in a way that is unbecoming of a country like ours. We are known internationally for our institutions and agencies that act in a professional and impartial manner, based on the facts before them.

At the same time, they are very sensitive to the concerns and perceptions of Canadians, and they will do their due diligence on their side for anything that comes to their attention.

I would like to hear from Madame Sinclair-Desgagné about why she feels it is necessary to include this amendment. I feel it's redundant, and I'm not clear on why this needs to be here.

I have lots to say on the motion itself, but I am limiting myself at this time to the amendment, as is fitting to do.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. It is noted.

Go ahead, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I’d like to thank my colleague for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to speak on the subject. I’m always very happy to hear the Liberals talk about transparency in our beautiful democracy, because it gives me a chance to remind them that the main foundation of trust is transparency. Canadians’ and Quebecers’ trust in democratic institutions depends on transparency.

In this case, the motion proposed by our Conservative colleagues aims to obtain documents that Canada Revenue Agency refused to give us at the meeting in which we heard from its representatives. It was my colleague who proposed the amendment, but I was present when we asked questions of Agency representatives that they were unfortunately unable to answer. Requesting these documents will therefore help us in our quest to find out what happened at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

As to the amendment more specifically, this one is quite straightforward. Its purpose is simply that this motion be included in our study of what happened at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and that the documents provided to us by the Agency on the Foundation may be used as part of our study.

So I’m repeating the same arguments I used for the last motion. If you want to talk about consensus, that’s fine, because all of us on the Committee already have a mandate to study what’s being done at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. As part of this mandate, we need to study documents, both those provided by former Foundation executives and those provided by Canadian institutions such as the Agency. This is essential to finally shed light on what’s going on at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two points to raise. First, to follow up on what I was talking about earlier, I see redundancy here. I don't see, again with great respect, how this particular amendment to Mr. McCauley's motion changes the substance of his motion in such a way that it would be worthy of all the time we've given to debating it. I don't see it.

I also see the bigger problem, and we'll get into it, I'm sure, whenever we get past this particular debate. There are an enormous number of problems with Mr. McCauley's motion, particularly in the way it would compromise the position of public servants, in this case at the Canada Revenue Agency. We heard very lengthy testimony on the part of the commissioner of the CRA, along with other senior officials, on the importance of the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act. Our colleague from the Bloc has passionately shared with us why this amendment is so critical, but at no point have I heard her say how she feels about what was raised in that particular meeting with respect to privacy and whether or not what Mr. McCauley has called for compromises that, as I believe it does. Now, if she were to raise that here, you might call her out of order, because it's not directly on her amendment, but I still want to hear her point of view on that eventually.

I go back to the first argument, and this is entirely in order. Where is the relevance of this particular amendment in terms of the overall motion? I see it as being redundant, and I don't know how it gets us any further in terms of this committee's work. We did agree to two meetings to study the issue at hand, the Trudeau Foundation, and the Canada Revenue Agency was brought in. We've done a lot of work on that so far. I thought it was valuable to hear the position and concerns of the CRA.

Perhaps opposition colleagues were not satisfied. They seem to have been spinning their tires a bit and not able to get answers or, dare I say, provide material for things like question period, among other things. The CRA is certainly limited in what it can say about the status and the situation of particular charities. The issue on that day was not politicized, and it should not be politicized, but we continue to see a situation here where the Bloc and the Conservatives are aligning to take this issue and put it at the front and centre of the agenda of this committee.

I don't see it as appropriate. I had the list in front of me a minute ago, and it was on future work of this committee. There were a number of very important issues to be dealt with, including the consideration of draft reports. I know we will be hopefully getting into that later today, Mr. Chair. There are a number of important subjects that we have in front of us, including, I believe, testimony from Correctional Service Canada, understanding the situation in prisons, and following up and putting forward a report on that.

This is critical work. Again, we don't advance the objectives of this committee by pursuing, with all due respect, amendments that are redundant.

I just wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say something to my colleague about the principle of transparency. There is another principle, that of the confidentiality of personal data. I've sat with her colleague Ms. Gaudreau on another committee, where there was a very intense debate on the importance of protecting Canadians' personal data. At the time, people were saying that government bodies were not sensitive enough to this problem.

I don't think it's my colleague's intention, but we could be opening a Pandora's box. Confidential taxpayer data could be revealed in parliamentary and, let's face it, partisan public inquiries. There is absolutely no reason to open such a Pandora's box. There are agencies that are capable of conducting such investigations and following up on them, whether by imposing fines or launching criminal proceedings against people who have contravened tax laws.

The main concern for my fellow citizens is that their privacy is not respected and they can therefore be scammed or become victims of identity theft. Many of my constituents are very happy to give money to all sorts of charities, but they are not necessarily aware of how those charities are run. When they donate to a charity that has a proper Canada Revenue Agency registration number, they have confidence.

Indeed, that number is now made public. About 15 years ago, this was really a problem, because people didn't know who they were dealing with. The fact that charity registration numbers have been made public ensures a degree of transparency. This measure has been very well received by the public and by the Canada Revenue Agency. Canadians now have more confidence in the organizations with which they do business.

However, this doesn't solve everything. Even if a charity meets all the criteria for a registration number, there may be irregularities in its management later on. It is at this point that the mechanism for notifying the Canada Revenue Agency of such irregularities becomes very useful. It was also very well communicated to the public at the time. If people had questions about a charity, it was explained to them how to go about notifying the Canada Revenue Agency.

If, on the other hand, the Agency were later to publish all the names and personal information of donors, this would cause harm to these people, who made donations in confidence and in a logical way. These people are not responsible for running charities.

So we need to put things in perspective. When we talk about privacy and personal information, I think it's up to an institution like the Canada Revenue Agency to deal with that. The agency is able to, under federal legislation...

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

On a point of order, Chair, the rules require the member to be both on topic and not repetitive. The member can't simply make all of the same arguments that she made last meeting again and again, and they're not on the topic of the amendment, so, on both counts, I would ask that you either call her to order or go to the next person on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I won't jump to that, but I would ask the member to stay on track.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, it was my colleague who talked about the importance of transparency. Transparency is the basis of her amendment; that's why she proposed it. However, it's very important to understand that in addition to the principle of transparency, we must also consider the principle of confidentiality of personal information. As part of this debate, it's our responsibility to remember that these two principles have opposing objectives, and that a balance must be found.

The goal is to ensure that charities, which have a charitable mandate, act in accordance with Canadian law. By law, the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for conducting an investigation. We need to ensure that Canadians have confidence in these organizations when they make donations. The Canada Revenue Agency is also subject to its own legislation, criteria and constraints. No one would want a data leak at the Agency, for example.

Transparency is important, because it increases public trust and improves the way our charities are run. However, I don't think we should be irresponsible in wanting to make everything public, regardless of the consequences for third parties who are directly or indirectly affected. I've witnessed cases where committees have investigated transparency issues, but in the end, the company's activities were in full compliance with the law. Despite this, people were questioned about their political affiliation. If a Conservative works with a Liberal, their work is sometimes thrown out, because people think the two can't get along. This type of approach is truly unworthy of a parliamentary committee.

I am adamant: this proposal does not aim for transparency, but rather at making copy the Journal de Montréal.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Shanahan.

Mr. Desjarlais, you now have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to my colleagues for being able to return to this important discussion.

I have two large questions in relation to this motion that I think would be helpful for us to have a discussion about. One is that it's in the public interest to ensure that we continue our investigation and get to the bottom of foreign interference and charitable donations.

I also recognize that it is a tremendous thing we're asking for. We're asking that the committee use its power and force to do something that I think has largely not been done in Canadian history before, which is to look at a private organization, a private group, and attempt to force the CRA to demonstrate documents so that we can review them in this committee. I understand what we're doing here, but I also want to find a way to balance the force we're using, which is a tremendous amount of force, and I think the public deserves accountability for that level of power and the benefit that doing this kind of procedure will offer us.

In order to maximize the benefit.... I agree that we should do what we can to investigate the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, but I also think that there's a big question of whether this is the appropriate amount of power to be using to do this. I'm inclined to make it more worth our while, if we can, and maybe even look into other instances where charitable donations have been received by political parties. This is an attempt to expand this motion, if we have agreement across all our groups.

I think I've heard from everyone here who suggests that we are here for the public interest in investigating instances of foreign interference and other levels of interference in our electoral system by way of donations. There have been organizations, not just the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, that have engaged in this across Canada.

If we're going to be using this power, I see an opportunity for us to go even further and create more transparency for Canadians by including a list of other organizations, if we have, let's say, a week to give that to you, Chair, to make it even more worth our while. If we're going to be using this extraordinary power, why not?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, my comments on redundancy in terms of the amendment haven't been answered. I'm happy to hear from our colleague from the Bloc on that specific point.

This is a question for Mr. Desjarlais. Could he expand on what he's talking about exactly? I am unclear as to what exactly he's looking at here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Desjarlais, I will come back to you. Your hand is still up, and I assume that was from before, but I want you to keep it up, because that question was directed to you.

Just to clarify, we have a study already to look at the Trudeau Foundation, and this motion relates to documents.

Mr. Desjarlais, if you do have a suggestion for a study or a subamendment to the amendment, I think members would be curious to hear that. Before I get to that, though, Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think the proposition from Mr. Desjarlais that we would look at potential foreign interference in terms of large foreign donations to other major entities is interesting. I can think of one candidate in 2020 where it would be interesting to know what kind of foreign donations were made there. I don't doubt that there are small-c conservative organizations that people might be interested in asking the question about as well.

There are particular issues with the Trudeau Foundation. There's a particular reason why we're looking at it, and that is because the Trudeau Foundation is a public institution. As we've discussed before, it has this very odd governance structure. It spends some time saying that it's a charity and to leave these poor charities alone, but the reality is that it's a so-called charity that has gotten a massive endowment from the government and therefore is subject to various statutes, to access to information requests, to the Privacy Act and to the Federal Accountability Act. This is defined in various statutes as a public institution, actually, so it does have a different status, even from charitable or advocacy organizations that have, for various other reasons, relationships with people in government.

It's not unimportant as well that it shares the Prime Minister's name and that he remains—though listed as inactive—listed as a member of the foundation, as part of a small number of members of the foundation with governance powers. He apparently chooses not to exercise those powers for the time being, but he has not resigned as a member of the foundation and remains a member of it.

The relationship between the Prime Minister and this foundation, the attempts of foreign interference that we know occurred, and the public nature of this foundation make it a very different kind of beast.

I think the questions the member raises are interesting and, in fact, worthy of study, but there are particular issues with the Trudeau Foundation, and we do have to define the scope of our work to some extent. I might just suggest this: Let's proceed with this work but let's continue the discussion about what other areas of study are merited as well, because, again, I think it's a very legitimate point to raise.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's back to you, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks for that, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to know that there is some appetite to look at this, because I think the nature of our motive behind this work, which is the part of the motion I agree with, is that we're trying to get to the bottom of foreign interference. To me, that is one of the most incredibly important purposes and why this motion is something that I'm in favour of, but the part I'm trying to balance with the desire to get answers on foreign interference is that it does not seem appropriate to exclude other instances where we do have credible public interest motive for other organizations.

I think it also creates a fairness regime to look at for a period under the last government. Mr. McCauley made a really good point earlier saying that when—or if—a Conservative government was to ever take place in Canada again, they'd be very open to looking at any organization to which this kind of accusation would apply because transparency is important and sunlight is the best disinfectant.

On that principle, I think it's shared between myself and the Conservatives that we need to get to the bottom of these things and actually find ways to expand it. I want to make it worth our while. If we're going to be able to exercise the incredible force of having the CRA give us documents related to a study on foreign interference, it would seem negligent not to look at some other key organizations to determine whether or not there's a pattern here, whether or not it's affecting all parties. If we're talking about foreign interference, don't you think that it affects more than one party? I think it's an opportunity for us, should the opposition agree, and maybe even the government would agree, to expand this.

It's no secret that during Harper's era, for example, there were many concerns when the Fraser Institute received some $4 million in the last decade from major American foundations. That went relatively unheard of during that time, and that's a large sum of money. Mr. Chair, these things exist as well on the opposite side, and given Mr. McCauley's position on how willing the Conservatives might be to see a study similar to that, I suggest that we include the Fraser Institute.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I never like to interrupt, but I was reminded that we are addressing the amendment to the motion. Your concerns are valid.

I'm looking for some direction from the committee here. I'm going to recognize Mr. Genuis in a second. I'll look to the will of the committee. Do we want to continue debating this amendment and the motion, or do we want to refer this to the subcommittee, because we are getting well outside the amendment? I am going to begin to focus us back on that, unless I get direction from the committee.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are seeing some delay tactics from the government side. We want to get this done, so I would not be in favour of adjourning this again. Let's just proceed on this. We have an amendment from the Bloc on the floor.

I want to say, in terms of the Conservatives, that it is of course true that foreign entities have tried to target all parties, but it is also true that there is no equivalent Stephen Harper foundation. There is no Stephen Harper foundation that got $125 million from taxpayers and where his children have privileged roles in governance. If there were such a foundation and if, at some future point, one of Stephen Harper's children became the prime minister and there was a massive spike in foreign donations at that time, I would think we should study those events. However, those events have not occurred in the case of Conservatives, so we're looking at a particular series of events.

I don't think it makes sense to necessarily try to associate purely private organizations, as I said, with the particular issues around the Trudeau Foundation. I also think it is legitimate for this committee—if it wants to, at some point—to look at the broader issues around foreign contributions to influential private organizations in Canada, and do so on a broader basis. The reason for looking at the Trudeau Foundation is particular to its nature as a public institution and its relationship with the Prime Minister and the government, as well as the fact that this committee is already studying those public issues. There is no equivalent forum for them to be studied at a public institution, because the Auditor General has already spoken about her limitations in that regard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Mr. Chair, seeing the clock and knowing the consideration of draft reports was scheduled for 12 p.m.— we're well past that now—I move that we now proceed to the consideration of draft reports, scheduled, as I said, for 12 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

The debate continues.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

Was there something more?