Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I’m pleased to continue my comments on Ms. Gaudreau’s amendment, which in fact refers to the Committee’s 27th report, in which we ask the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct an investigation. This is something we always have the right to do, but I wouldn’t recommend doing on a regular basis. Indeed, this type of request from the Committee requires a certain amount of thought and involvement. It also goes without saying that such a request must be of some importance. It followed our discussions and questions from some Committee members about a charitable foundation that received a substantial sum from the Government of Canada. I think there was consensus among all the parties present in Parliament, but I wasn’t there.
Frankly, this foundation wasn’t on my radar when it was created. Its purpose was to recognize the legacy and life of a prominent Canadian, Pierre Elliott Trudeau through its nonpartisan work.
Everyone knows quite well that Mr. Trudeau came to politics rather late in life, unlike others who began their careers in Parliament at the age of 19 or 20 and managed to pursue them for decades. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, devoted his life to a kind of global education. I think he even resisted identifying with any one of his professions. He was a lawyer and a journalist, and certainly highly involved in the various issues of the day on a personal level.
I therefore see in the mandate of the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Foundation a certain recognition of his life, hence its name, which is entirely appropriate. It’s also a deliberately nonpartisan mandate, above and beyond any political considerations. It aims to encourage students to excel in their fields of study, which is precisely what Mr. Trudeau chose to do. The Foundation is dedicated to nothing other than Mr. Trudeau’s work.
I can’t recall exactly who was there at the time, but it certainly wasn’t a decision forced through Parliament by the Liberals. At the time, all political parties agreed to create this kind of foundation. That’s why it had this special status.
In my opinion, the Foundation has always fulfilled its mandate impeccably. I may have heard it mentioned a few times when I was studying at McGill, and we know that many students received scholarships from the Foundation. However, as we heard from senior Canada Revenue Agency officials when they appeared before us, if someone raises questions, they certainly deserve answers. For our part, since the Foundation was created by Parliament, we felt it was appropriate to vote in favour of this motion calling on the CRA to investigate.
There were other questions from our colleagues and a desire to question CRA officials directly, and we will have the opportunity to directly question people who were members of the Foundation’s Board of Directors. I believe one of them is still a member. Once again, we’ve acted appropriately. We’ve managed to secure their cooperation in appearing before us, because they too want to answer questions and set the record straight about any allegations or accusations made against the Foundation. We’re well aware that this has been a high-profile case, and I can understand that.
Anyone who’s ever sat on a board of directors knows it’s not a full-time job. It’s something you do on a volunteer basis to give back to the community.
It’s true that board members must be accountable, but that’s not always the case when a media storm erupts. When they’re bombarded with questions, it’s understandable that they’re not prepared to answer all of them and can’t convey information as clearly as they’d like.
Past and present members of the board of directors have already testified before certain House committees. I have to say that I didn’t expect the issue of charitable giving to fascinate everyone quite so much. It’s not normally the most interesting subject, and people don’t want to talk about it. We’ve all learned about it, and there’s more to come.
I was quite reassured not only by the questions and answers given to the Committee by Canada Revenue Agency officials, but also by the written answers provided to us. In fact, I mentioned that more than 30,000 reports had been sent to the Agency.
One of the members wondered whether CRA knew who was raising the alarm and whether those people or employees might suffer the consequences. CRA told us no, and that it would never reveal the identity of a whistleblower. That reassures us, because people who have information about an organization are in a position to help the general public by alerting the Agency. It’s important that confidential and personal information be protected by Canada Revenue Agency officials. I imagine this is part of CRA’s culture, which is reassuring for the general public.
I see that my colleague Ms. Yip also had a very good question about the timeframes surrounding an investigation. It goes without saying that a whistleblower wants to know that it’s not going to take ten years for action to be taken.
Once again, I think that, for reasons of confidentiality and to protect the process, it’s important for Canada Revenue Agency officials to advise us that they can’t go into detail. They did talk about variables, suggesting, for example, that it would be self-evident that an investigation would take time in a situation that went back several years, or that sometimes the Agency would have to visit the offices in question.
We can expect an audit of any significance to take at least a year. Again, I think that’s reassuring. This isn’t the Wild West. We don’t believe that it’s enough, in the wake of an alert, to carry out an investigation that's more or less serious and make superficial or hasty decisions. We simply must take the time required.
I can speak to the seriousness of the answers that were provided. I think all Canadians can rely on the work, which was done properly, as requested. Indeed, the Committee itself asked that Canada Revenue Agency, when it conducts an investigation, do so properly.