Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am disappointed that we are not moving on to the draft reports, because by my count, I think we're at five draft reports that we have yet to review, and I think there are even more on the way. That is the work of this committee: the producing and tabling of reports to Parliament.
I must also address the remarks by Mr. Genuis regarding the Trudeau Foundation and that it's somehow a vehicle of the government. I find that horrendous. From my knowledge, that was a foundation that was established by Parliament after due debate, votes and that kind of thing, for the purpose of furthering education and exchanges on the part of young people, and it holds the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau because, quite frankly, that is a name that resonates with young people.
I must say that the people in the municipality of Saint-Rémi, in my riding, are very proud that the Trudeau family had its beginnings in their region. In fact, at Pierre Elliott Trudeau's request, he was buried in a very modest cemetery in Saint-Rémi. This is a source of pride for our people. Half of them are related to the Trudeau family, but not everyone shares Pierre Elliott Trudeau's views. That said, the reason we're here is to talk about the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.
My colleague is trying to draw a direct connection to Mr. Trudeau's son, but the son is not the father. The reason people chose the name “Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation” is because it's a well-known name, like John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier or Lester B. Pearson. These are all long-gone historical figures, but I think everyone will agree with me that their names still mean something.
Is it always a good idea to do this? In some cases, we've had to make readjustments after new information came out. It's always possible to give an organization or foundation a new name. The fact remains, however, that the purpose, mission and raison d'être of the organization or foundation remain the same.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he is no longer involved with the Foundation, which is absolutely correct. This meets the criteria of the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has set his ties with the Foundation aside.
Those who are interested in anything to do with the Trudeau family could have listened to the testimony of Alexandre Trudeau, who testified before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, if memory serves.
So, for those who are curious and want to know all about the Trudeau family, it's a family that has played a very important role in our history and our political evolution. Of course, there are other foundations named after Conservative figures. I could ask my colleague to tell us about them, but I wouldn't go that far. Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've said this, but I myself was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, in the days of Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, and I took part in a number of activities. I loved the work of Flora MacDonald, for example, and I could support a foundation named after her. She was a truly remarkable woman.
The point is that there are values and contributions that go beyond partisanship. One day, there might even be the name of a Bloc Québécois leader. I'm always impressed by how my Bloc Québécois colleagues participate in parliamentary debates. They know the rules very well. It's a laudable way of contributing to our democracy. I always tell my fellow citizens how active my Bloc Québécois colleagues are in Parliament and how much they enjoy coming here to Ottawa to engage in debate in our beautiful federal Parliament. It's a compliment. Whether we are debating human rights or the environment, we're entitled to different points of view. Of course, the same goes for our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, with whom we also share progressive values. Jack Layton was a great Canadian.
So, whether we want to honour any one of these figures, Parliament might consider doing do at some point, but it shouldn't involve any partisanship. When a foundation chooses a certain name, it's a badge of honour of sorts. It's because it wants to represent the same values as the person who bore that name, which is perfectly fine.
Now, is it important that people feel the foundation is fulfilling its accountability obligations regarding the source of its donations, the execution of its mandate and its compliance with laws and regulations, and that its activities are beyond reproach? Yes, and there's a reason we have agencies to monitor and investigate all of this. These agencies can call for corrective action, impose fines and go as far as laying more serious charges.
In the beginning, Parliament had no framework for investigations. It was in response to very difficult situations that governments, both Liberal and Conservative, saw fit to set up first one agency, and then others followed. These agencies were given the mandate and power to conduct confidential investigations, which would later made public if they uncovered something important with regard to protecting the public. One of these agencies is the Canada Revenue Agency.
On this committee, I prefer to work with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, which has nearly 600 professionals with all the skills needed to conduct proper investigations.
My colleague said that the Auditor General had been asked to investigate foreign donations. However, she is not in a position to conduct such an investigation, as it is not part of her mandate. She therefore rightly refused to undertake one.
My colleagues still have questions and have brought up the Canada Revenue Agency. We've already heard testimony from officials, including Mr. Bob Hamilton, Commissioner of Revenue and Chief Executive Officer of the Agency. They've assured us they have the tools they need to follow up on a request to investigate, for example, the solicitation of donations and revenues by a foundation or charity, or an individual's tax returns. They know exactly why they're there.
Are we aware of everything they do? No, and with good reason. Our job is to ask ourselves whether duly mandated public servants have the tools they need to carry out their responsibilities. We're not there to do the work for them; they're the ones who have to do it. We're lucky to have such professional people, who are respected and recognized around the world. Witnesses have told us that organizations in other countries often seek advice from these professionals and ask them to share their best practices.
We can therefore be proud of the institutions that have been duly established by our democracy and that work for the well-being of all Canadians.
I think we're still talking about Report 27. We asked the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate, and it was absolutely the right thing to do, because the officials had assured us directly that, if we made a request, we would receive some sort of response. They couldn't confirm anything, and I know some of our colleagues would like to know everything about everything, but we had no reason not to believe them.
If there was another situation where people were telling us that they had reported a problem with an organization to the Agency, but the organization was carrying on and the Agency wasn't doing its job, then we'd be in a position to ask the officials outright what they were doing. This committee would probably not be the one questioning them, because I think there are other committees better equipped to work directly with the Agency. However, in such a case, we can certainly work with the Auditor General, who has a mandate to oversee what goes on in all agencies and departments, regardless of the work they do. She and her team choose whatever programs or activities they want to examine, sometimes under a specific theme, and then publish reports that are scrutinized by everyone.
There are press briefings where the media is out in full force. The reports make headlines for a period of time, and rightly so, because we remember the studies the Auditor General has done in the past on systemic shortcomings in some agencies and departments. Take Indigenous Services, for example, where there were major shortcomings. I was very reassured to know that the mandate for the audit had been passed on to the Auditor General by her predecessor, Mr. Ferguson, one of your colleagues from New Brunswick, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ferguson told us how much of a priority it was for him to get to the bottom of this. We also know that it remains a major priority for our NDP colleague, Mr. Desjarlais.
It follows that we have work to do on some very basic issues. Instead of duplicating the work of an agency or another committee, our committee should work efficiently and ensure that Canadians get value for their money. Let me remind you that our committee has reports that have yet to be published and tabled in the House, and they're piling up. In my opinion, the committee's priority should be to do the job it was mandated to do by Canadians.