Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

My point of order is that I don't think the chair recognized that, when we're online and we put our hands up.... There's a precedent set about who speaks first, I think, on the Zoom systems. Whether I'm in the room or online, my hand is up.

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

The rules existed for hundreds of years before the existence of Zoom.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, when we put our hands up on Zoom, there's an order that's set. I was speaking—

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

Zoom does not set the precedent. The committee's rules predate Zoom by hundreds of years.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will perhaps put our acting clerk on the hot seat.

I'm sorry about this, but could you perhaps explain the procedures, as you just explained them to me? The members won't just be challenging me; they'll be challenging the committee as an institution.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Audrée Dallaire]

Yes, it's up to the Chair to determine who has the floor first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.

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

I move that the committee resume consideration of the motion that I moved at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This is the motion:

That in relation to its study of the Trudeau Foundation, the committee authorize the chair to summon witnesses on its behalf.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. Do you have anything else to say about that?

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

It's dilatory. I can't say anything else even if I wanted to.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I missed what motion this is.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, this is a motion that would allow us to return to discussing, debating and hopefully ultimately voting on the Trudeau Foundation witnesses, who have so far either declined or been silent, to see how we proceed as a committee. This vote is not on the motion itself, but it is to return to the discussion.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, there are five in favour and five against the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I vote that we resolve the matter, so I vote yes.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Chair, can you clarify what we are discussing at this point, because I have many things that I want to discuss?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, correct me in case there's been a change that I'm not aware of. The motion is this:

That in relation to its study of the Trudeau Foundation, the committee authorize the chair to summon witnesses on its behalf.

We are discussing this because we have a meeting scheduled for Monday, June 5, and the Right Honourable David Johnston and Mr. Mel Cappe have either not responded or declined the committee's invitation. In the last meeting, there was some discussion about how to proceed. I thought Mr. Genuis tried to bridge the gap between an immediate summons and a firm request that they appear, and that's where we are.

If I've misstated that, Mr. Genuis, I will come back to you after Mrs. Shanahan.

That's where we're at, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Indeed, Chair, you are reminding me of some of the discussion we had around this motion and how it is going too far too fast when there are intermediate steps that could be taken. Indeed, I think it behooves us as a committee—especially as the public accounts committee, which is already going into ground that is not normally that of the public accounts committee—to treat potential witnesses with all due respect.

I think at that time I had asked for the clerk to advise us, through you, Chair, as to what steps had been taken and what the responses were from the potential witnesses. Indeed, I would prefer to see the chair—and I have been in this position before on other committees—having a discussion with the witnesses individually regarding the modality of what would work, because to be summoning witnesses—and I have seen that now on this same topic in other committees—seems premature. Witnesses have been making themselves available, and there may be good and reasonable grounds as to why a witness for personal or professional reasons or for matters of mandate would not wish or would decline to appear before this committee.

The first reason I can think of is that they would not be dealing with the proper and normal authority we deal with in this committee, which is the Office of the Auditor General. Indeed, it would be her office that would most appropriately be in the position to meet with these individuals, if indeed she chose to do so and if indeed an investigation was appropriate to her office. I see members wondering why I'm putting so many qualifiers around my statements. It's because, of course, I don't think it is appropriate that this committee, in essence, investigate individuals who represent professionally or personally a charitable foundation, an organization that has been conducting its affairs.

I mean, what would be next, Chair? Are we going to start investigating—I don't know—Food Banks Canada? Are we going to be investigating the Heart and Stroke Foundation? Where are we going with this? This is over and above and outside the purview of this committee, so it is not surprising to me that these witnesses....

I believe—but I can be corrected—they have already appeared before other committees. They've already provided testimony. I hope there are Canadians watching this, ordinary Canadians, those Canadians with the common sense that my colleagues so often vaunt. They say, “Why would it be that the public accounts committee, which has to do with audited public financial statements, with performance reports, with value-for-money reports on departments that provide services to Canadians, is calling individuals to testify before it when there are other committees and other agencies that are better fitted to do so?”

I have seen committees call people in—ordinary people going about their own business—just because of some tie they had to some partisan point that the opposition wanted to make, and those individuals were grilled. They were publicly humiliated. They were subjected to harassment, both online and physical harassment. They were people who were running a business. Speakers Spotlight is the group I'm thinking of. Their employees were harassed in their offices, and the individuals themselves, the owners. Why? They happened to book speakers that happened to be in some cases related to our Prime Minister. Of course, they booked many other speakers as well, but that point was lost in all of the publicity.

I think that when ordinary Canadians saw that, they were horrified. That's just one case that I remember vividly. Of course, there were other cases of people being subjected to a witch hunt for partisan purposes. It had nothing to do with any kind of governance issue, nothing to do with any kind of proper execution of the work of the parliamentary committee at that time, when there was also an independent commissioner who was charged.... We're talking about ethics. We're talking about the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That work is done properly through that channel.

Now we're dragging that kind of dirty politics into this committee, where we're going to be dragging people in front of this committee. We're not even giving them a chance to explain to us why they decline to appear before us.

Chair, it is more than disappointing to see this committee being dragged to that level in what is essentially a partisan witch hunt. I say that because if there were real concerns about the Trudeau Foundation and how it operated and how it conducted its affairs regarding the collection of donations, regarding how they accounted for those donations, regarding how they issued receipts, regarding anything else in the line of what this committee is occupied with, which is, of course, good governance—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis has a point of order.

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

I'm concerned that there may be an error in the minutes of the April 24 meeting. It's important that we have accurate minutes, of course. I'm reviewing the minutes of the April 24 meeting. It says that all members present, including the Liberal members, voted in favour of the motion to study the Trudeau Foundation. I'm wondering if there's an error in the minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I will return to Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We, indeed, started that study. We said, “Let's meet with CRA officials”, and we did, in camera. The CRA officials were here. They answered the questions posed to them to the best of their ability.

Of course, they are governed, and rightfully so, by legislation, which prevents them from divulging confidential, private information. This is legislation that was duly passed by Parliament for the protection of Canadians' tax information. These officials, in fact, are duty-bound. They risk criminal charges if they divulge personal information here, at this committee, to anyone outside the bounds of where they are able to work.

However, these officials were able to tell us that the moment anyone raises a flag about any organization or about any taxpayer who may be engaged in improper activities—it doesn't matter how small, what kind, or what distinction—they do investigate. Could they confirm they were investigating the Trudeau Foundation? No, because that brings them into the area of divulging information that they are legally bound not to.

Do we have any doubt? Is there anyone here who has any doubt that if the CRA has information that could lead to a proper investigation on its part and the recovery of...? It usually has to do with improperly reporting revenues, expenses, somehow benefiting from the tax system, or somehow allowing others to benefit from the tax system.

We've all had that experience, whether it's us or a family friend. I've worked in this area, and I certainly saw it happen. When an individual gets a letter from the audit department of the CRA, it's serious business. The CRA certainly take its work very seriously.

If the individuals this committee is looking to summon as witnesses have good reason, I would like to learn more about that. They are already, perhaps, dealing with the CRA. We don't know. There is scope to think that if we want to.... Again, I am open to learning whether there is reason to be concerned, but I want the proper agencies, the proper authorities, doing the job of the actual investigation.

I am going to ask you, Chair, if you can inform the committee of any developments in this regard. I'd also like to hear about how you go about asking witnesses to come. Normally, in public accounts, it's not an issue, because normally, the witnesses we invite here know that they're going to be invited, and there's no issue about that. It's the Auditor General. It's her staff. We've gone a bit out of the box, and there has been support around that, in pursuing a follow-up to Auditor General studies and questioning department officials. Department officials certainly know they are going to be called to this committee, and they are certainly here.

In fact, I can remember my NDP colleague's predecessor, David Christopherson, recalling that there was a time not that long ago when we couldn't get deputy ministers to this committee. We insisted that, indeed, that had to be the case, because, while the minister is in charge of the policy part, it is the deputy minister who is in charge of the execution of the policy, programs and so on, and that was where we were digging in as far as the public accounts committee was concerned.

We wanted to know—I've heard members here question deputy ministers repeatedly, and those questions were very on point—what the measurement system was, what the timeline was, what their action plan was, why it is that they didn't meet that objective, how this money got spent and we're not seeing the results. Those are the kinds of questions, the kind of material and the kind of output that are expected from this committee.

Chair, when you, with the clerk, are inviting witnesses, I don't think it is difficult to obtain those witnesses. That has allowed this committee to be an extremely productive committee, and it has been a point of pride that we have been able to address and question witnesses and write reports.

We have about five or six draft reports now on hand, as I speak, that I'm sure the chair would like to be able to table before we rise for the summer. I'm very hopeful that we'll get to those reports, but in the meantime, the odd time.... I'll say that on some very important occasions, when colleagues have raised a concern about the environment commissioner's reports and that we should be looking at those and amplifying those—that would have been from my colleague Madame Sinclair-Desgagné—or indeed that we have a minister come...because there have been repeated Auditor General reports on the same topic.

We were in agreement with asking the minister to appear before us. We were certainly in agreement with asking the commissioner. I know that in the past, it was something that was not agreeable to the Conservative side, having the environment commissioner here to further amplify his reports. I would like to have more discussion on that, perhaps at a later time, because there now seems to be some dissension as to whether or not our Conservative colleagues accept that there is climate change and accept that something needs to be done about it—but I digress, Chair.

I wonder if you can now tell us about what the status is of discussions with the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll speak to these points.

First of all, I want to clean up the list of speakers, of which I'm sure you're one. I just want to confirm that we have Ms. Yip, and then Ms. Bradford. We also have Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

I'm going to take a step back very briefly. We're doing what I'll call typical, regular committee business. We do have exceptional witnesses who come. It is by no means automatic. In fact, the superb team at this end have to send notices, follow up and often remind officials that they have not only a request to appear, but a statutory obligation to appear as accounting officers. Even then, it still requires some light cajoling and reminding them of their obligation to appear as a matter of law. It is by no means automatic. The clerk, in particular, is part greyhound, part diplomat, and always does a good job. He is informed wisely by the two analysts to ensure we have the proper and best witness possible.

I'll now turn to the steps we took in this matter.

First of all, I'll say, Mrs. Shanahan, that you are entitled to state and believe all of the things you did as a duly elected member of this House and a member of this committee—your concerns about witnesses and why they've been asked to appear and reservations you might have. I will say, though, that witnesses do not have that right when they are asked to come before a committee. If we extended it to witnesses, the system would break down, if we allowed witnesses to defy a request because they had a concern or an issue.

To inform members, I'll turn now to some of the reasons that I received. These are the steps that were taken. I requested witnesses from all members. They came in. Those were sent out. I then proceeded to compile witnesses based on who had made a request. There was some overlap. There were some witnesses who were requested by three parties. There were some who were requested by one or two, and I worked with the clerk to balance it out and send that list out. There was no objection to it.

The clerk then proceeded to invite those witnesses. I won't name names, but I'll say the same thing I said the other day. One witness said he was unavailable because he was overseas. I proceeded to change the date, because that witness was requested by three parties. We changed the date, we sent the invitation out, and we were just told he was unavailable and someone would appear on his behalf. Another witness has not replied, and the third has just said he has nothing to add. It is not up to the witness to decide whether or not he or she has something to add. He's been invited to appear before the committee.

That is where we're at. Since then, there has been no further communication with them. I have sought direction from this committee. Here we are, with this motion looking for direction about three witnesses who have provided either very little or no good reason, frankly, as to why they should not appear before the House of Commons standing committee.

On that, I will turn to Mr. Fragiskatos.