Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 66th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Before I go into committee business, there are a couple of things we're going to discuss today.

I might appear somewhat distracted today. If you have not heard, there is a forest fire in my riding. It's not far from Saint Andrews, the place government members know well, because you keep coming back. You are welcome there again. It's 15 kilometres away. I've been in touch with Dominic LeBlanc and local officials, but it is out of control at this point, so I'll be relying on the clerk today. We have a good team on the ground there. The firefighters are working hard. There are, at this point, seven water bombers in the area. By New Brunswick standards, it's quite serious. Of course, it would pale in comparison to anything we have seen in western Canada recently, given their vast size, but because it's close to population centres, it is quite serious.

On that note, I'm going to return to committee business.

At the last meeting, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné gave notice of the following motion:

That the Committee request that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics forward to the Committee all documents and correspondence received from Ms. Pascale Fournier, ex-President and CEO of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

Why don't I turn to you, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné? Would you like to address this? We can discuss it to see whether we can come to any consensus.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It was brought to our attention that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, after meeting with Ms. Pascale Fournier, received some very interesting documents for its study on foreign interference and, more specifically, on the management of the Trudeau Foundation. That committee, which is examining the issue of foreign interference in general, has received a significant amount of information.

It would be more appropriate for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to look into the management processes of an organization that has received public funds, such as the Trudeau Foundation. We have therefore tabled this motion, because it fits in perfectly with meetings we’ll be holding next week with representatives of the Trudeau Foundation. I believe it would be most pertinent for us to obtain these documents as soon as possible, so that we can do our job properly at these meetings.

Among the documents provided by the Trudeau Foundation by Madame Fournier, there are e-mails and correspondence that would be quite germane to our study. I therefore hope to obtain the consent of Committee members, who have already passed the motion to hear witnesses from the Trudeau Foundation. This motion is in the same vein. It’s important to have access to these documents, so we can be well informed during these meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Are there any comments?

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I’m trying to understand. These documents have already been submitted to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Everyone knows very well that I don’t like committees duplicating studies. So I’m trying to understand the relevance of what’s being proposed.

The motion before us asks that the Canada Revenue Agency investigate the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, in the public interest. I’d like to know whether the documents and e-mails in question pertain to tax issues or tax considerations in connection with donations. I believe our committee clerk could find out if the other committee already has access to those documents.

Personally, I haven’t seen the witness list. Is Ms. Fournier being called to testify before us? Our committee is taking a turn that I’ve never seen, quite frankly. In my opinion, if we want to improve the effectiveness of our work, it’s important to know more about the reasons behind these e-mails and exchanges with a former Foundation director.

My questions are along those lines. If we’re not in a position to answer them today, we could set this aside and come back to it after we’ve made enquiries, especially with our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have two comments to make in this regard. First of all, Ms. Fournier is not one of our witnesses. In addition, the clerk informs me that, even if we request these documents, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will have to discuss them and decide whether to agree to forward them to us. Personally, I have no idea what these documents contain.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

I’m glad my colleague mentioned that we don’t want committees to duplicate work. These documents are not the focus of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That committee is studying foreign interference in general, and therefore cannot dwell on the documents provided by Ms. Fournier in a delayed response to questions put to her. Our committee, on the other hand, has decided to undertake a more specific study of the Trudeau Foundation, which is the subject of these documents. It is therefore highly appropriate that we should have access to these documents. To respond to my colleague’s concern, the two committees will therefore not be doing the same work twice and, on the contrary, this will enable us to do our work.

As for the documents themselves, we obviously can’t go into detail. For the time being, these documents are confidential, since the study was conducted in camera. However, we would like to have access to them to carry out our study on the Trudeau Foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mister Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a simple question for our colleague: To what end? How is this going to benefit the work of this committee? How will this allow us to carry out our role as members of a committee who sit on the audit committee of Parliament and have as a first obligation to review the reports of the Auditor General and then follow up with public servants, in particular, to understand what has been done to rectify challenges and problems that exist?

Of course, I wouldn't want to blame my colleague for politicizing this committee. That's not what I'm saying, although others might point in that direction. I'm not sure.

I'm struggling to see the overall goal here. What exactly is the aim in this motion, when other committees are very well placed and are looking at exactly the same thing?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just a moment, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné. I know you want to speak, but I have to follow the list before me.

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair. My comment will be similar to what I said earlier, but I’m trying to understand what you just said. According to you, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has its own job to do. When documents are tabled there, they are not automatically transferred to other committees.

Everyone knows that Ms. Fournier, a former employee of the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation, did not leave her position under the best of circumstances. We could get into an argument where it’s one person’s word against another’s, but, as my colleague said earlier, it’s really not the role of this committee to intervene in this kind of situation. It’s a bit like the Committee interfering in a dispute between civil servants in a department and taking sides.

I believe that we should stick to information that has been verified and that will lead us, objectively, to salient facts and conclusions that are in everyone’s interest to discover.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you now have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, whether my colleagues like it or not, the Committee has decided to conduct a study on the management of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Let me be very clear: we are conducting a study of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. The purpose of this motion is for us to do our job, which is to conduct an in‑depth study of the management of an organization that has received public funding. In the documents, there is indeed written evidence of certain facts that have been reported.

This allows me to answer Ms. Shanahan’s question. As these documents are written proof, it would no longer be one person’s word against another’s. They will also provide us with answers to the questions we put to the witnesses. If the witnesses contradict each other, let’s look for the evidence. Let’s look at what’s written in the e‑mails and the documents that were provided. It’s all about evidence, and that’s exactly what’s going to enable us to do our job of verifying what happened at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and what continues to happen since we still haven’t had any conclusive answers. It was here, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, that we decided to undertake the study of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. It’s our duty to do it, and we’re going to be able to do it. The public has a right to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that we're getting farther and farther away from our work of reviewing Auditor General reports, as well as looking at the time remaining and the schedule. We should really be wrapping up our draft reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead.

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

If you’re going to do the same work twice, why not do it 100%? I imagine there are other documents about who did what in this case. That’s really not my goal, as I prefer to stick to documents that have been professionally checked and properly written up, such as reports. We’re interested in the financial management of the organization, not human resources management or anything else.

Once again, Mr. Chair, we could, through the clerk, ask the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to provide us with the other documents that were tabled by Mr. Rosenberg or other witnesses. We can all study them. As long as we’re redoing the work of this other committee, let’s go all out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Sidhu, I do see you. I'm going to turn to Garnett in a second, and then Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

I'll just respond to Mrs. Shanahan.

Mrs. Shanahan, I've heard that request. The motion is before the committee. I'm trying to weave it in, but at this point, I still want to hear from a few more people. Your request is to seek information from the clerk. I have heard that.

In addition, perhaps Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné would also have some comments regarding your question.

First, Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

Very briefly, Chair, it's quite absurd to hear members of the government worry about spending time on this as a result of this motion. This motion is a request for documents that will aid us in our study of something this committee has already agreed to study and that members opposite eventually voted in favour of agreeing to study.

What is taking time is needless ongoing debate on this motion. If these documents have already been given to another committee and even one member feels that looking at these documents would be useful for this committee as well, I don't know why we wouldn't easily say yes to that.

Again, if people are concerned about the time this is taking, requesting the documents isn't taking any time except insofar as it's taking time because members of the Liberal caucus continue to try to delay the vital accountability work that we're trying to do as it relates to the Trudeau Foundation. We need to get to the bottom of what happened to the Trudeau Foundation.

We saw a filibuster last week on Mr. McCauley's motion and then a move to adjourn debate on requesting documents from CRA. We're just trying to get the documents that will allow us to do our work and find out what happened to the Trudeau Foundation, and it is mighty suspicious that we see continuing efforts to find excuses to not get these documents. It's particularly strange that the government says, “Let's spend a long time talking about this motion to determine if we have time to do this.”

We're just requesting documents for a study that we've already agreed to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Sidhu.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to my colleague, in terms of [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Sidhu, I'm just going to pause you. Someone's throttled your Internet.

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

This might not be a technical issue; it might be part of the delay tactics we're seeing.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

We're not talking about women's reproductive rights around the world. That could go on for a few days coming from the Conservatives, but let's get back to what we're talking about here.

I want to talk about—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Sidhu, could you start from the top again? Your Internet was throttled. We thought it might have been a delay tactic. Clearly it is working now.

Could you start from the start, as our Speaker in the House likes to say?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I would love to.

I was saying, in respect to my colleague, that there are no delay tactics here. Every committee conducts important studies. When we see from my colleague.... We're talking about women's reproductive rights around the world. For those watching, go back and watch the colleague who just talked about delay tactics.

I'm going back to what we're talking about, which is our mandate. It's important for Canadians to know what each committee's mandate is. I think we need to stay on our mandate, and on our mandate, I'm reading from the House of Commons website: “The mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to review and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada.”

I know this study may be important to some colleagues, but I don't believe this is the committee to do it on. We have important work in front of us, and we need to stay and work towards the mandate that Canadians have given us on this committee.