Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Can we keep it to five?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It will be five minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We're back.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you still have the floor, if you would like it. Then I will look for others or, heaven forbid, call a vote.

There's an amendment to the motion. They're still working on the translation. I could have it read again, if you would like. It is on its way.

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

Since colleagues have not had a chance to look at what's been suggested in written form, can we just wait a few more minutes until it has been emailed?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes. I'll just check with the clerk.

I want to have Mr. Desjarlais read it again, and then I will suspend.

Would you mind reading it again, Mr. Desjarlais?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Sure. Did it not go to the right committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, they have it. We're working on the translation now. That just takes a few minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Oh, I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to have you read it, so I can internalize it again, because I actually don't track my emails as closely as I should.

Please read the amendment while the clerk is working on the translation. Then I'm going to suspend right after you read it.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Sure. The amendment says:

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We're back.

If you all want to check your emails, you should have the motion in both official languages.

Is it an attachment?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I got an email, but I don't think it had an attachment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We're checking this right now. Stay tuned.

I'm going to repeat it here:

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.

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Just so we're on the same page, that would also require deleting the end of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, it's an amendment to delete and replace it with this.

Mr. Fragiskatos is next.

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

I want to thank Mr. Desjarlais for putting forward an idea, a suggestion, that I think moves us forward in a positive way with respect to this debate.

I think it's important for us to consider what has been said and the ramifications of this entire motion—leaving aside the amendment, this entire motion—in that, again, I think it has created a situation whereby a precedent is being set, Mr. Chair, and we can't decide these things without keeping in mind what that precedent means.

I know that Mrs. Shanahan wants to make some comments as well, so I'll yield my time to her to add some thoughts to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have a speaking list. I'm happy to recognize you afterwards, Mrs. Shanahan, but I'm going to go to Mr. McCauley.

Would you like the floor after Mr. McCauley?

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

It was concerning the deletion.

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

I'll continue, then. I'm not going to speak to the amendment here. Let me just speak to the motion overall.

Again, Mr. Desjarlais has done his best to reach a compromise. The challenge, of course, is that we continue to focus on a summons. That, for me, is a situation whereby this committee creates a scenario that establishes the kind of precedent that sets us back in a very unfortunate way.

Chair, let me simply remind you—you know this, but it's important to put it on the record once again—what this committee's mandate is all about. I'll make it clear and read directly from our mandate letter—not our mandate letter, but our overall mandate. The mandate of the public accounts committee is to “review...and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

Where in the motion that Mr. Genuis has put forward are we debating anything that relates to the overall mandate of the committee? I don't see it. I only see a motion that's come out of left field and that does not push us in any direction that would allow for the mandate of this committee to come to life.

It's problematic from start to finish. Again, there's nothing in here about a certain foundation or any particular charity. The Auditor General has no role in any of this. The Auditor General has emphasized that she doesn't have a role when it comes to the governance of particular organizations like the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, but here we are, discussing and debating a matter that we don't need to be debating. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing.

I have a challenge with that. I think members on this side have a challenge, as well, with what's happened here.

Is Mrs. Shanahan on the speaking list?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

She is after the next speaker.

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

I'll hear from Mr. McCauley.

I'd love to hear what Mrs. Shanahan has to say too.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

In the last meeting, on another motion, I reminded you that we're to speak to the motion. I appreciate the view that members are not satisfied with this study, but I will go back and highlight that you all voted. This passed unanimously. I'm going to sharpen the debate on the amendment to the motion at hand. We're all in this together, because we all voted for this together.

On that, I will pass it to Mr. McCauley. You have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm a bit lost, which is not an uncommon thing in this committee or other committees.

On Mr. Desjarlais' motion, I appreciate, as always, his middle-of-the-road interventions to try to move the committee forward.

There's nothing in this motion that satisfies us in forcing a summons. I'm left with the impression that the government side is just filibustering for the sake of filibustering to kill off the committee. Mr. Desjarlais's motion just says to reinvite, and the committee reserves the right to summons, which means that we would actually have to vote on it, which means we would have to debate it, which means the Liberals could block it.

I know Mrs. Shanahan is next on the list. Maybe she could fill us in on their intentions because, again, Mr. Desjarlais' motion, if they support it, would achieve their goal, which is to not force a summons. Maybe the government side could enlighten me on what their intention is for the continued filibuster on a motion that seems to be what they've been proposing from the beginning.

That's all. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.