Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Easy, easy....

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

I say it in the best sense. We don't know each other extremely well, but everything I've seen from you, Mr. Chair, though we might disagree from time to time on certain points.... The point remains that I respect the fact that, as committee chair, you have the ability to issue a letter and to make it as stern as you want.

In line with that, again, I go back to the possibility of you simply reissuing a letter that's sterner and seeing where that goes. That's not something we've considered at this point. Instead, we want to go from a request being made to a request being turned down and then to a summons. It's not something that's been done before, in my experience. You mentioned it yourself. It is relevant to say again that in the committee you and I worked on, when a summons was eventually put forward, it came after a long time. It was not immediate. Here, we're rushing immediately to that outcome, which I have a huge problem with.

What does it say about this committee if we, through you, Chair, tell witnesses to come, they decline and we say that now we're issuing a summons? In other words, it's the most extreme kind of response that a committee can give. It's not good for this committee. It's not good for the reputation of this committee. It's not good for the reputation of members of Parliament, specifically us. I think that's something that can't be dismissed either, Mr. Chair.

Again, we have shown ourselves to be able to work together toward reaching a compromise. I wonder if members are still interested in pursuing that and wish to put that forward. I'm open to it. Liberal members are open to it, but of course, it depends on the wording and the precedent that it would establish. I don't want it to negatively affect any subsequent meetings that we would have at this particular committee or that other parliamentary committees would have, pointing back to that time in the summer of 2023 when the public accounts committee decided thus and so.

I know there are other members on the list who wish to share something. I'll leave my comments there for now and yield to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

I have Mr. Sidhu, Mrs. Shanahan, Mr. McCauley, Mr. Desjarlais and Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Sidhu, you have the floor, please.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to get into this coffee spill, but I want to make sure that the carpet is okay. Coffee does stain, and I want to make sure that the call was made to the janitor. I know there was an accident over there. I have great respect for public property and this sacred institution.

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

We'll appoint a special rapporteur for it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Getting into the discussion here on the floor, I'll speak to what my colleague mentioned. We are going really fast from inviting to summoning somebody. What I've seen in some of the other committees I've been on is that sometimes invitations don't work for the person. We should be a bit flexible and humane. There could be some circumstances we're not made aware of that we need to look into. It could be for health reasons; it could be for travel. It's important we do give the witnesses another chance to get back to us before we demand or summon. Through you, Mr. Chair, it's very important to make sure we do remain flexible. We want to be respectful and give them that chance.

What we're discussing now is the motion at hand. I don't believe it falls within the mandate of our committee. We're here to review Auditor General reports and report back to the House. I know there are many, many reports pending. The list is growing very long. We have colleagues in the House asking us when we'll be getting to certain reports they're interested in.

I believe there was one on indigenous drinking water, before I got on this committee. That one is very important to some of our colleagues here, as well, and important to me. We have constituents who have reached out on that one, as well. I know that within our mandate.... My wife is a teacher, and her students discuss indigenous drinking water availability, so it is important to my constituents. Students have written to my office about this. That's something I know is very important to so many of us.

Going back to the motion at hand, I don't think it falls within our mandate. We need to stay on track here to make sure the committee is focused on the mandate we're given. We should focus on the reports we're tasked to review. It's very important to have that on the record, for those who are watching, that we need to focus on our mandate. We need to focus on what we're put on this committee to do.

I know many of my colleagues here will have more to add to this, but I do believe we need to give witnesses another chance before we demand or summon. Sometimes, as I said, the circumstances may not have worked the first time. There are other committees where we ask witnesses to come, and they're not available. Sometimes we select 20 witnesses, and 10 are not available. We figure out a way. We need to remain flexible in terms of asking our witnesses to come. That's what we should be going forward with, having that invitation sent out again to see what the flexibility is and what we can do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I think we quickly came to a decision during the break.

I salute my colleague Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné for expressing her thoughts on this subject. I know that she wants to find a compromise that will allow us to respect the witnesses. It is a huge step to go directly to this stage, that is to say the summons to appear. I think it was the clerk who taught us that technical term. I'd like the clerk to comment on that.

What I've been told is that, in other circumstances, as soon as an individual receives a request like that—I believe that the request is made by letter, like a summons to appear—there are legal consequences related to the person's decision on that summons. People seek legal advice themselves in those circumstances, which is reasonable.

Before we get to that, a truly extreme approach, wehave to consider certain things. It seems to me that we're insinuating the witnesses have something to hide. We can't say their names, but we know that some witnesses have already testified before other committees. Therefore, we can't say that they haven't cooperated in the past. They may have very legitimate reasons for hesitating.

In the past, the chair sent a letter that he had drafted. Let's not forget that he represents the committee members. It's not up to the chair to make decisions of this magnitude. I believe that's not the case. If it were a chair from another political party, that would be considered bad faith by opposition members.

The usual practice is that the chairs, whether they're on the government side or the opposition side, always have to check with committee members before proceeding or making such an important decision. In that sense, we did discuss various ways of looking at this motion to add an intermediate step.

We can say that the chair will still point out to potential witnesses that there will be consequences for their actions, similar to any disciplinary procedure or anything like that. Everything works better when the people in question know the first step and they know that if they don't comply with the request, they will face consequences. It gives people the choice to voluntarily respond to the request.

When I look at the original motion, it's really not clear which witnesses we're talking about. Since the meeting is public, we can't mention any names. However, there seems to be some openness in that regard. Are we going to start calling witnesses left, right, and centre? We don't know.

Again, Mr. Chair, I don't think you would want to do this on your own. On other committees, in the absence of consensus—which is ideal—I know that the chair makes sure that their actions reflect the will and support of the committee members.

The chair told us about three witnesses who were called and didn't appear for reasons that have already been cited. For example, they had gone on a trip or they had nothing to add. I can't remember the third reason, but maybe you could remind me.

At first glance, I get the impression that the witnesses don't realize how important this invitation is. In that sense, I think an intermediate step would be entirely appropriate. I hope that we can work together to find a way to help our chair prepare a letter or move ahead so that he can win the support of everyone around this table. It's important to me that this be clear to the witnesses in question and that the committee continue to work with the chair at every stage.

I understand that there is a concern about timelines.

It's also possible to set a deadline for responding that we consider acceptable for an invitation, but also mention that a summons is possible. However, I don't feel we should be playing that card right now. I see that you agree with what I'm saying, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that.

I'd like the clerk to tell us what the consequences are for an individual—a Canadian—who refuses to comply with a summons like this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I just double-checked, but my memory served me correctly. It would, of course, come back to this committee for consideration, at which point the committee could take any number of steps, including referring it to the House or deciding to do nothing. Those are the two poles.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your time. I won't be long.

I'm disappointed. This is a motion we all agreed to unanimously. It's funny. I'm hearing right now that people are saying it's not within our mandate. The same people who voted for this motion are now saying the motion they supported is apparently out of order.

We hear repeatedly that we have other things to do. I think we should just vote and get to this. I don't think it is a great use of our time to continue to filibuster out witnesses whom we, the committee, agreed to have appear. I don't think it's an issue of one or two. There appears to be a concerted effort by all of the witnesses to refuse or ignore our committee. I would ask the government to stop delaying and allow this to get to a vote. If they're so willing to work on consensus or as a group, we should put it to a vote and see what the members of this committee think.

I'm very happy to leave it in the chair's hands. The amendment is suggesting that we give them one last chance and if they do not agree, we leave it to the chair's discretion to proceed from there.

That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm also disappointed that members didn't show the same concern for my jacket that they did for the carpet.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to my colleagues.

It's always a fascinating experience at the public accounts committee, having to balance the important work in the interest of the public, which is to have some evidence to suggest what Canadians are worried about in the presence of the issues related to the contributions of the Trudeau Foundation, as that work continues in other committees. I think this committee has a role to play in relation to finding out how the CRA—we did that last week—and other entities within the government's oversight mechanisms are going to do this work.

I think that, given the gravity of the situation.... The absence of some of the witnesses we've requested to appear further motivates mistrust. I believe this is in the public interest, so I agree with many of my Conservative colleagues who spoke previously. I agree with the need to see these folks appear. I also agree with our Liberal colleagues that going straight to a summons is obviously something this committee is not entertaining. That, to me, is why we're having this filibuster right now.

As a way of attempting to end this filibuster and getting to the work this committee is interested in doing on behalf of Canadians, I'd like to table an amendment to this. Perhaps I can send it over to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, do you have wording that you want to read? Then you can send it over, or do you want to send it first?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Let me know when you're ready.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

The amendment would be:

That in relation to this study of the Trudeau Foundation, the committee requests the following: Edward Johnson, David Johnston, Mel Cappe be invited to this committee.

Additionally, given the gravity of the issue, the committee reserve the right to consider a summons.

I am open to amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We now have an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Fragiskatos, I have you down. There is a speaking list, so I will come to you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Is there a speaking list on the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Well, I am going to maintain the speaking list.

Mr. Desjarlais, could you email the amendment to the committee email, please?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Are you done, Mr. Desjarlais? Okay.

I had Mr. Genuis down, but he has stepped out.

Mr. Fragiskatos, do you want to speak to this briefly?

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

Thank you to Mr. Desjarlais for the amendment. However, I would like to look at it more closely, and so would my side.

If we could take five minutes, that would be appreciated.