Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

More recently, when we were dealing with the COVID vaccine study, we sent out some requests, I believe, to all the manufacturers of various vaccines to appear before the committee, and not all of them came before us. It's not unprecedented that sometimes witnesses, for whatever reason—and sometimes apparently they don't disclose—choose not to appear. I did—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to correct that. Committees will make that decision. Witnesses do not. This committee made the decision in that case that we were not going to press it. That was our decision, not the witness's. Let's be very clear on that: Witnesses don't excuse themselves because they don't feel like coming.

Thank you.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Let me clarify. I don't believe that our committee has ever summoned witnesses before this committee, and I don't feel that we want to go that route. As I said, I unfortunately experienced, a couple of hours ago, witnesses being badly disrespected by a committee through process.

First of all, Mr. McCauley's original motion was that we would demand 10 years of unredacted tax returns, information on a charitable organization—the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. That particular motion would put the CRA employees at a great risk—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

There is no relevance, Chair. That's not the motion we're discussing.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay, but I'm just saying how this has now blown.... First of all, that would put those employees in great jeopardy for prosecution, including fines, up to imprisonment, and now Mr. Genuis's motion is now saying that we want to—

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

I have a point of order, Chair. I don't mean to interrupt my colleague, but I did see that our colleague had a bit of an accident with his coffee. I don't know if he's burned. I just want to make sure he's all right.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. We appreciate that.

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

Enough with the delay tactics.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Some like it hot.

Ms. Bradford, you have the floor.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I hope everyone is okay over there.

It's a bit of a heated discussion, so we don't want anyone getting burned in the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Literally.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Yes. There's concern for my fellow colleagues here.

Now, I just feel that we're getting.... First of all, we were asking for unredacted records of tax returns of a charitable foundation, and now we're asking in this latest motion that Mr. Genuis has put forward to authorize the chair to summon witnesses.

Again, we've never done that. We invite witnesses. We encourage witnesses. We, hopefully, compel them to comply. I just feel that summoning witnesses goes beyond what we have historically done. I just don't see how summoning someone would add to what we're supposed to be doing—as I've said, reviewing Auditor General's reports. We seem to be getting further away all the time. At every meeting, we're straying from our mandate and what we're supposed to accomplish. Meanwhile, some of the things we've worked on for weeks may not even make it to the House and get tabled because we're going down other rabbit holes or branches.

That's my feeling. I just think this is inappropriate, both in context and in approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I'm going to turn it over to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

First, I want to say something. It's very valid to discuss the rationale and the mechanisms we have before us. The study itself was passed unanimously. I'm going to corral back to that.

I'm going to make a quick point for some of our members. Of note, Mr. Fragiskatos and I have a unique experience. We were both on a committee that summoned a witness. Ms. Bradford, you are right: It is an exceptionally rare occurrence.

I've had one member ask me about the steps and the difference.... When we invite witnesses, it is the committee's request that they appear. Of course, generally people comply with that. That is something we do as a matter of courtesy, but it's one where we're appealing to people to appear before Parliament and the standing committee. Elevating it to a summons is a demand, and it is a demand that is rarely rejected, because it's akin to a court appearance. It virtually obliges the individual to appear. Now, of course, people can still not appear before that committee, at which point the committee can discuss it, and if it chooses to, elevate it to the House of Commons.

That's what we're debating here. I know that one member was looking for a point of law.

Am I right, Mr. Clerk? Is that a fairly accurate difference between them? An invitation is a “we hope you'll come” and a summons is a “we expect you to come”. Yes, that's accurate.

On that note, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'm going to assume right now is quite major. All of my colleagues here, including those across the way, want to get to the bottom of this, because they voted in favour of doing a study on the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation to understand what's happening now and what's happened there.

Given the circumstances, we need to consider the fact that, after this week, we have three weeks at the most to go before the summer break. We know our time is limited, and we need to be able to take action so we can do what we were mandated to do, which is to conduct a study on the foundation.

Therefore, I come to you in good faith.

Can we agree to amend this motion—and I'm not moving an amendment, I'm approaching my colleagues in a friendly manner—to call representatives of the foundation again and show them how important it is that they appear?

I must say that I have complete and utter confidence in our chair and in his ability to assess what constitutes a valid excuse, such as illness or a prior engagement too important to miss. He has already shown some flexibility in terms of the schedule.

A week after the invitation is sent, should we get a refusal or no response, we would authorize the chair to summon them to appear, given that we have very little time left to hold the two scheduled meetings.

I'm proposing a method that's meant to be a compromise so that we can move on to something else. If you really want to move on to something else, that's what I want too. I feel that's what a number of my colleagues here want.

In my opinion, what I'm proposing is a happy medium. We're inviting representatives of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation to appear again. It's important that the witnesses selected testify before the committee and answer our questions. Some members of the foundation have already been called by three of the political parties on the committee, and together they make up a majority in Parliament.

One reason we're inviting them again is we've noted some serious contradictions in the testimony we've heard to date. It will be up to us, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to determine the truth about what really happened.

It's important that we hear from these witnesses. I understand that you want to turn the heat down and not call them immediately, so be it, but we could give them extra time to respond to the invitation in good faith. However, if we unfortunately don't hear back from them within a week, we would authorize the committee chair to issue a summons for key witnesses.

I put forward my friendly suggestion to the committee as a compromise. I'm appealing to the good faith of all my colleagues in attendance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you happen to have the floor next, so you can respond to that if you would like.

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

Sure, Mr. Chair.

Our colleague says that she is open to presenting a compromise in a friendly way, which were her words. I would say this to anyone, not just her. Our side needs to see wording. I wonder if we can take a short pause for wording to be put together, and then we can come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I think that's a fine idea. I just want to make sure that there is wording that can be discussed before taking that recess. I'm looking for consensus here.

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

Do we have wording on the table?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, there's nothing on the floor. Have there been any discussions?

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

Let's take a short recess. I don't want to see this be a.... We have other business to deal with. Let's take five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We'll have a five-minute recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to recognize Mr. Fragiskatos again. He had the floor before we suspended.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor, and there is a speakers list.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think there are colleagues on my side who also wish to get on that speakers list, because they have a perspective they wish to share. There was, in the discussions that have taken place, perhaps some progress. I don't think we're quite there, but I think there has been some progress in a positive direction.

I'm tempted to ask for another five minutes, but I doubt you would give it, or maybe you will give it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I think we need to hear a little more. I think we need to have a public discussion. I'm not sensing we're close enough for that.

There is a list, though, Mr. Fragiskatos. I can put you back on again if you're yielding. The next person is one of your colleagues as well.

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

Various sides, Mr. Chair, will perhaps be able to put pen to paper to identify a potential compromise here, an amendment. You can even call it a friendly amendment if you want, because the substance of the motion, I hope, remains intact.

Let me make it clear that I think this motion is not in line with what this committee should be looking at or the mandate, but if this is the direction we're going to go.... Again, it's a minority Parliament and opposition members will try to take the steering wheel. I think it's incumbent upon us to restore a sense of responsibility in terms of what the committee should be looking at.

I'll leave it at that for my comments on the committee's direction.

As I speak, I think perhaps members could be, again, taking pen to paper and putting something together that could work as far as a compromise is concerned.

In the meantime, let me return to some of the points I had put on the table but didn't finish. First of all, there is the point of the summons, not only in terms of its place in this particular debate but also in terms of its place within the wider Westminster parliamentary tradition. Mr. Chair, you're a student of history, and I know you're interested very much in history because we have worked on committees before. You will know that the move towards issuing a summons within the Westminster tradition is itself extraordinary.

When members on this side communicate a strong concern, to put it mildly, about the possibility of a summons being issued towards witnesses, this is not something that's unique to this particular question, and it's not something that's unique to Canadian democracy at the federal level in the moment we find ourselves. This is something within the broader tradition of Westminster we borrow from that is considered problematic from start to finish. I think that is something we have to pay attention to. We can't ignore that and, for that reason as well, it is extremely important that we live up to our responsibilities as parliamentarians in this regard.

I wonder what the aim is in terms of the summons that can't be achieved by reissuing a letter and communicating a firmness in tone. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, you can be more firm in your letter. You're a polite man. You're a good guy, I think, and—