Public Accounts Committee on June 5th, 2023

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

Thank you, Chair.

Indeed, the members voted for the motion, but it's the how that we're talking about. Now we're talking about amendments. We're very concerned that the very prescriptive nature of some of the amendments and motions that we are seeing coming forward will, I will say, not only hurt the study that we have agreed to do but, in fact, jeopardize its very utility to the Canadian people, because it would rightfully—and this is the risk that apparently other members are willing to take—be seen as just a partisan hack job.

I would like to remind members that we did hear from CRA officials. It was a very interesting meeting, and members certainly availed themselves of the ability not only to ask very detailed questions of the CRA officials but to request those replies in writing.

I thank the clerk for forwarding the replies that we received. I find it very pertinent that, in those replies, we have the answers that we are looking for. I think they were given verbally, but it's always clearer when you have a document in black and white.

There was one question from Mr. Lawrence concerning what the penalty would be if a charity wilfully put the incorrect name on a donation receipt. There was some discussion about what the penalty was. The official said at the time that she would come back with the answer. What's interesting about the answer is that, apparently, it's not necessary to identify donors. You can have an anonymous donor. It only becomes an issue if the donor asks for a tax receipt for deduction purposes. That makes sense, because, for the Canada Revenue Agency, it is the Income Tax Act that is their primary concern and that, indeed, charities do not issue donations to an incorrect name of someone who would then claim the charitable donation credit when, in fact, the gift did not come from that entity.

When there is an incident, when they identify it during an audit.... I like the incremental process they take, because maybe it was a mistake. Maybe it was human error. Maybe it was lack of education. As we know, charities very often have volunteers working for them. Not everyone is an expert in this area, so they give the charity a chance to correct its non-compliance with an education letter.

If it's not corrected, then they will move to a compliance agreement, which is something that's a principle of justice we have in this country—that people are given a chance to do better and to comply. We have seen that before where even members of Parliament make errors in the conduct of various activities, but they will be spoken to and advised and in some cases given, and they sign, a compliance agreement saying they will do better.

Of course, in the event of someone wilfully then doing the same or failing to correct their error, then there are penalties. In this case, the CRA responded that the issuing of a receipt to a wrong name could be assessed at a penalty equal to 125% of the eligible amount. In this way we have the assurance that the CRA has tools that, when they are made aware...and I'm going to get to the section I know many members were interested to hear about, which is how the CRA decides who they're going to investigate, because we want to make sure that they're going to investigate X, Y, and Z.

Here we have the assurance that there is a process and indeed they have fully provided an annex with a complete list of penalties and sanctions for registered charities, which is not confidential information. It can be found on the CRA website along with, of course, a list of registered charities that anyone can consult, and indeed they should do so. Of course, the ultimate.... I think it probably could go further to charges, but certainly their registration would be withdrawn in that case.

There were other answers to questions that members had posed.

I did want to say that a disbursement quota is not something that everyone is familiar with, but indeed if charities do not disburse funds according to their mandate to the minimum that is prescribed by the Canada Revenue Agency Act, then that penalty is that much greater because the whole purpose of the charity is to collect donations that the donors can then receive receipts for and then they can get a reimbursement on their taxes. There's a monetary benefit involved. If these charities then do not disburse their funds in accordance to CRA rules, it could constitute fraud.

Sometimes again it's a charity where the people who are operating it are not experts in the area. They don't understand the rules, so the CRA will work with the charity. However, they will indeed revoke the registration of charities and they have. It was Madam Sinclair-Desgagné who asked for an example and further explanation on that. The CRA responded that since 2006-07, indeed 25 charities have been revoked. The registration for 25 charities have been revoked for reasons that included a disbursement quota shortfall.

Again, this is information that they were happy to provide to the committee members here. They do give examples, which I won't repeat here. Personally, I don't see the benefit of naming and shaming when there could be any kind of reason. Sometimes it's the death of the founder of the charity. I've sat on boards before. It's a lot of work. I would hesitate to say that anyone who starts a charity with the intention of defrauding the Canadian taxpayer.... That's usually not the purpose, but things can happen. We can be assured that the CRA is attentive to those matters.

What I did want to get to was the question regarding the number of leads. That was Mr. Desjarlais. I appreciate that question because it gives us an idea of what the universe was like. Is it one or is it...? As it turned out, it's something in the area of 30,000. Did I read that correctly? A leads program typically receives over 30,000 leads from the public on cases of alleged tax or benefit cheating each year. I believe that can include individuals as well as businesses and charities. That is very interesting.

I know the classic, of course, is a falling out between partners or spouses or whatever. The first call after the divorce lawyer, apparently, is to the CRA. People do need to bear that in mind. Your private information may not be so private.

We were assured here by Mr. Hamilton and his officials that every lead that comes to them is looked at one way or the other. Now perhaps members might ask whether other departments that we work with in the government have the same standard of practice. I would venture to say that, where there is the possibility of collecting money, there's a particular motivation that comes into play. I am glad to see that this kind of due diligence is at play.

Can we know who the folks are that are named on these leads? Can we know what the outcome is? If it's one of us that provides the lead, will we get a personal report? We heard from the officials that the answer is no on those lines. Again, they are directed under Canadian legislation, as part of the authorities that they have to conduct this work, to keep it private. No one wants to hear about a leak from CRA. Nobody wants that.

The repercussions of a leak do not bear contemplating. I dare say that I'd be the first in line—and I know I'd have colleagues with me—demanding for the head of any official who allowed a leak to occur. That information is kept private, but those investigations are undertaken. Eventually, if they do fall into the public view in a court scenario, and so on, we do have the results and rightfully so. As we know, in our system of justice, one is innocent until proven guilty, and rightfully so.

I find this so reassuring to know we can ask questions and get these kinds of detailed answers. I will have more to say, because I'm still looking through the documents the clerk provided, but I would like to hear from other colleagues on this topic.

I thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I do have a list.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor. We will then hear from one of your opposition colleagues, and then Ms. Yip.

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

I look forward to hearing from opposition colleagues, Mr. Chair, particularly if it's Mr. McCauley on your list. I'm not sure if it is. I would love to hear what he has to say about the fact that there's no.... I mean, there are a number of problems, as we've already put on the record, to put it mildly. I continue to be polite because this is the audit committee of Parliament, where we're supposed to be non-partisan, so what does it say if I seek to agitate? I won't do that. Others might want to do that, but not me.

I wonder if Mr. McCauley could address, when it is his turn to speak, that glaring omission in his motion and in the amendment, as well, about the lack of protections for public servants. There are no protections that are included here. If he's going to put forward an idea, a motion, an amendment or whatever it might be.... Ultimately, it's an idea that the CRA go down this path of submitting to this committee documents from a particular organization that would, without question—let's be clear on this—contravene the privacy provisions of law, of the Income Tax Act in this case.

I'll get to this point, but now, as I speak, I realize that there could be other contraventions of privacy that are included here. By invoking, as he has, his motion and his amendment, I wonder what other privacy protections of organizations and of Canadians, the Conservatives have thrown into question. I see nothing. I see no protection mentioned at all and no thought given to that.

You know, I hate to say it because, as I said, I'm trying to be collegial, but it takes me back to things that have been said about the Conservatives, this particular iteration of Conservatives: that they don't have respect for public servants. If they did, if they had respect for public servants, there would have been an inclusion—at least a sentence—in terms of protecting public servants who would reveal this information. It's not there. I don't see it. None of us sees it.

It's hard to take seriously the idea that there's respect being given to public servants on the side of Conservatives who have made that point in this debate and in other places. It's just not here. I think we need more information on that particular point, Mr. Chair. How can we ask public servants to go down the path of in effect, or not in effect but directly.... I'll be very blunt. They're being asked to break the law. I can't believe I'm saying this at a public accounts committee, at a parliamentary committee.

When I was elected in 2015, I never thought we would see a committee go in this direction. Some of the best work you can do on Parliament Hill—and you, Mr. Chair, and I have shared these conversations because we've sat on another committee before and worked well together—is at committee. Here we're talking about ordering public servants to reveal documents that would have them break the law. Is this really what we're debating? Is this what we were elected to do? It's not right. It's not in keeping with the obligations of parliamentarians, and it goes completely against any notion of fairness in a modern democracy.

As you know, there are very important branches of Parliament. There is the executive. There's the legislature. However, within those, of course, is the public service—or the “bureaucrats”, to use the term my Conservative friends are so inclined to use. If we're going to be serious about our obligations as parliamentarians, we have to pay attention to the needs, interests and concerns pertaining to parliamentary obligation, and that means recognizing that in no way should any parliamentary committee or any parliamentarian ever ask public servants to break the law.

It's stunning. It represents a low point in this committee's history—there's no question about that—and it represents a low point in terms of what I've seen in almost eight years of having the honour of serving the people of London North Centre. That's the first point I wanted to raise.

Related to it, I wonder.... Again, I'm waiting for Mr. McCauley to put his opinion on the record, but before we get there, I want to make a few more points.

I wonder if we could look into this, Mr. Chair. Have we ever had a committee that has asked public servants to do something so egregious without asking for protections at the very least? Is there any precedent for that?

Maybe you can tell by my tone, Mr. Chair, that I'm not completely serious. However, if we're going to be serious about debating this overall motion and the amendment, then perhaps it makes sense to go down this path. I think we'll find that no committee worth its salt has ever asked that of public servants. To offer no protections is something that, as I said, is a real low point.

Mrs. Shanahan said a number of interesting things that I want to build on, not to repeat, Mr. Chair. The implications of the work that we do here are far-reaching, and if we were to go forward and support the amendment and the overall motion of Mr. McCauley and the Conservatives, then I think we would be running into a real challenge because this point about leaks from the CRA is not an inconsequential point.

The implications of that.... What does it mean? There are implications for charities. If charities are looking at the overall picture and wanting to exist in a context of fairness, you need a—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I appreciate that we have wide latitude when filibustering. There's no mention at all of any risk of leaks from the CRA. I'd ask you to bring the member back to the issue at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I'm curious to hear where this is going, Mr. Fragiskatos. You have the floor.

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

Sure.

The point relates to the substance of the overall idea that Mr. McCauley has put forward, including the amendment. If we go ahead and support the amendment, it means, in effect, that we support the motion and that is just out of bounds, as Mrs. Shanahan has said.

If we have our tax agency seen as leaking documents—and, in effect, this goes in that direction—it calls into question what that tax agency ultimately represents. It wouldn't be a leak officially, but, in effect, that's what you have when you have public servants being asked to submit to this committee the private documents of an organization. Whether it's a leak in the classic definition or not, the effect is the same.

What matters to me is outcome, and here it would be—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll meet you halfway, Mr. Fragiskatos. I'll let you continue this line, but could you not refer to producing documents to Parliament as a “leak”?

I take the point. I was wondering where you were going, but I think you just need to be respectful of the right that Parliament has to seek documents. There's nothing nefarious or underhanded about that. Your line of reasoning.... I think there's an argument there, but I'll ask you to be a little more judicious in your words.

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

All I'm saying is that the effect would be the same whether one wishes to call it a leak, which I won't in this case. I'll indulge you on that one point, but when we have any organization looking at this and asking if we have fairness in our tax system, I think they can say yes.

They might have issues with the Canada Revenue Agency. That's fine. That's democracy. Many Canadians have the ability to raise concerns about the CRA. There is an appeals process and so on and so forth, but it starts from the very basic understanding that the tax agency is fair and is not going to, for example, divulge information on a whim or on a request by a parliamentary committee for political purposes.

Where is it going? It's ultimately going towards creating an environment of mistrust that organizations, whether they are charities or businesses.... The Conservatives used to style themselves as the party of businesses, of the free market, of entrepreneurship. Business needs, almost by definition, a level playing field. That includes a tax agency that is fair. If a tax agency is asked, in this case by a parliamentary committee, to reveal the information of a particular organization.... We're talking about charities here. It could just as well be a business. There is nothing preventing a future committee from looking at Mr. McCauley's motion and saying, “Let's gather the information that the CRA has about this business”. Then the level playing field I talk about is not in place.

That is a huge problem. This is an advanced democracy. This is a G7 country. Yes, we have many challenges, but we're still one of the most advanced democracies in the world, where people come to learn the practice of democracy. Now we're going to ask our tax agency to reveal the confidential information it has about a charity organization. There are huge problems that come from that.

Ultimately, the T3010 form that is mentioned and that Mr. McCauley is seized with—let's just be sure of our terms here—is an income tax return for charities. That is what that form is, so the information in that is quite sensitive. I wouldn't ask you, Mr. Chair, or any colleague here to see your income tax return. That's a private matter. Could you imagine if we started asking the Canada Revenue Agency for individuals' tax returns? It's not that different in terms of what's being asked for here.

This is an enormous breach of parliamentary obligation that can't be allowed to stand for the reasons I've mentioned, which are new reasons that build upon what Mrs. Shanahan has already offered. Committees set precedents. That is the case. We have to be very careful about the precedent that is set here.

What will the business community think when it becomes clear, as it is already becoming clear, that it's the Conservatives who are trying to obtain particular documents that are protected under privacy provisions? What will they think, if this were to go through, about what this Parliament is all about? They have privacy rights, as all Canadians have the right to privacy. It's a very curious and strange motion and amendment that the Conservatives have put forward for that reason. Again, it's about fairness, a level playing field. This is what's required in the charitable sector, in business and in all realms of Canadian society and democratic life.

I see that my colleague has something that she wants to share, and I'll give up the floor in a moment. I'm interested to hear what Mr. McCauley says, particularly on this point about protections. I'm stunned that someone who has been a parliamentarian for so long has neglected to put that forward.

To go back to my other point about precedent setting, I mentioned an organization that represents the gun lobby. It's probably the lead organization in the country when it comes to lobbying on guns. If the Conservatives want to go down this path, it opens up the floor entirely. I'd love to hear what Mr. Desjarlais would have to say on this.

They want to know about the ins and outs of a particular charity organization or not-for-profit organization. They've used the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation in this case. They must understand that this does open the path for any member of this committee to put forward a motion to obtain information from any organization, whether it's relating to the gun lobby or other organizations that seem to be close to the Conservative Party and actually are close to the Conservative Party.

I'm not sure that they've thought this through. There is a domino effect to what they are trying to pursue with respect to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. I'm not saying that this is the direction the committee should go, Mr. Chair. Again, I put forward an idea. I don't know if colleagues across the way have considered it. I know the Conservatives won't, as I've said.

Colleagues in the Bloc and colleagues in the NDP, I am ready to put forward a motion that would have us get back to what this committee is all about, which is to delve in and understand things like climate change. We could look at other things like poverty, for example, and what the Auditor General says about where things are at as far as poverty is concerned in Canada.

I do note, Mr. Chair—and it is relevant to the conversation because I am going to mention the Auditor General—I would love to know what the Auditor General would have to say on the plight and position of children living in poverty in the modern day. I know that we have seen some substantial declines in child poverty. The Auditor General could look at the overall landscape, not just in terms of federal policy but provincial and municipal policy, as those policies relate to what we do on the federal side. That would be a much more serious and substantive approach to take with respect to what this committee is all about.

Instead, we're putting forward a motion that, if taken to—I used the phrase before—its logical conclusion, would have us examine the ins and outs of the gun lobby. The Conservatives are opening a huge can of worms here for themselves. It's stunning. Let's look at their income tax return. Let's look at that T3010 form, for example. Is that something that the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights is interested in divulging? I would think not, Mr. Chair.

Let's better understand their political activities. If they want to politicize this committee, then naturally, by definition, they want to politicize the analysis of charity organizations. They are trying to do so with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

Again, take that to its logical conclusion. What are the political activities of that particular organization—the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights—or other gun lobby organizations vis-à-vis the Conservative Party? Have they been involved in helping to craft the overall public safety policy of the Conservatives with respect to guns? We don't know that. Is there anything in CRA documents that would show particular relationships of that kind? Perhaps there are. Is there anything in terms of foreign funding to be concerned about, with the National Rifle Association, for example? Are they involved in helping to fund particular gun lobby organizations?

I won't only focus on one. There are a few that we could put forward in terms of a motion. I think we would have opposition support for that because, while there are differences between the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals—many differences—there is much more in common among the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals on things like gun policy and responsible gun ownership. We saw this recently with Bill C-21 and there are other examples. The Conservatives are going down a path where this can of worms is a very real one for them.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair, on relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos has the floor.

We'll go over to you, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, we're all politicians, and in politics, you have to think about second and third order consequences. There's always that ripple effect. They've cast their stone in the water, and the ripple effect is such that they're putting themselves in a very compromising position. Those folks in the gun lobby are probably calling the opposition leader's office right now.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Again, relevance...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor. I would maybe ask you not to speculate on what's happening in the OLO or with some of these groups. You know about as much as I do in terms of what might or might not be happening. Let's stick to the facts.

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

I won't speculate. I raise it as a possibility only to make the point that this has now turned into theatre. This has now turned into a sideshow. Mrs. Shanahan and I both used the term that this is now.... We threaten to open up a kangaroo court here. I can't believe it.

We're asking the CRA and its public servants to break the law. We have a motion and an amendment related to that motion that offers no protections for public servants whatsoever. It's something the Conservatives haven't thought about on that front. They haven't thought about what the overall impact of their motion would be in terms of the organizations they clearly care so much about. I think that we should be neutral in anything that we raise here and that we should be as objective as possible.

I have no particular affinity for the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. It has provided scholarship support to outstanding graduate students. On its board have sat noted Conservative politicians—not just politicians but giants of the Canadian conservative political tradition. Bill Davis, I believe, was on its board—former premier of Ontario. A former premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, was involved. This is an organization that's done good work. However, we're seeing the entire debate around it politicized.

There's the impact that this would have in terms of a precedent. I've already noted that. The path forward here opens the door to either this committee's or some future committee's looking at the Conservatives and saying, “Well, there are organizations that your party cares so much about. Let's look in, and let's examine that further.”

Like I said, I don't have a particular affinity. I'm not tied to the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, but this is the implication of what the Conservatives are raising.

I would love to hear Mr. McCauley's point that he wants to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor now.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Good heavens, I would need many hours to address a lot of the falsehoods that have just been brought up. However, this is their filibuster, not mine, so I'll just touch on a couple of points.

First of all, I would welcome the government's launching any investigation into any of the entities that he mentioned if they are also ones that are named after the father of the current Prime Minister, that perhaps received a $125 million of taxpayers' money, that are implicated in foreign interference or that actually fall under the Federal Accountability Act. However, seeing that not a single other charity in the entire country meets those requirements, I think we should probably just stick to this one.

I have a couple of comments just really quickly.

Yes, the CRA was here, but they did not answer the questions. If you look at what they've actually tabled, we asked very specific questions. For example, who makes the decision to audit charities? The answer that came back was a word salad, basically.

We've seen the CRA prosecuting faith-based charities, apparently just on a whim or perhaps politically based or racism based. The Ontario supreme court made it very clear about Islamophobia being involved in the prosecution of a charity. We asked about that and we did not get any answers. To sit and say that the CRA answered our questions is a complete falsehood, and it's unfortunate that the governing side continues to take their side for political reasons.

On addressing the issue of precedence and that this committee in the past has done this or that, public accounts is a very important committee, and I'm very proud to be part of it. I'm very proud to be working with very dedicated colleagues who are focused on accountability and transparency, but the reality is that I don't believe public accounts has been very successful. One of the files we're looking at has been ongoing since I sat in once in 2018, five years later. This is the issue of the government bureaucrats—or public service, however you wish to call them—doctoring graduation rates of indigenous...and it's still going on.

I remember asking Mr. Ferguson at that meeting, because it was the famous incomprehensible failure report on the Phoenix, but also this. He said it had been going on for a decade. It's 15 years. I'm not willing to be part of a committee that's just going to sign off and say, what a great report, AG, thanks for bringing it up. Let's put it away for five years and dust off the disastrous consequences then. That's not good enough for me, and I don't think it's good enough for my colleagues sitting over here.

While this committee does incredible, valuable work, it's not enough. What's been done in the past is not enough to serve Canadians.

I want to quickly address one last thing. I realize it's politics. I realize it's theatre. It's unfortunate that the government side repeatedly is knowingly and willingly misleading anyone watching, but misleading Canadians when they talk about forcing CRA employees to break the law.... It's very clear that the committee has the power. It's on page 895 of our rules and procedure book. It makes it very clear that Parliament's committees have the right to ask for any documents we wish. There's a set-aside for national security issues, but this clearly is not one of those.

To say that CRA officials would be jailed or would be breaking the law is a falsehood. I respect what the government's trying to do. I respect that it's theatre. I'm sure they're going to get some great Facebook clips they can post up saying that the Conservatives are trying to force our brave public servants into breaking the law. That's not the truth, and we should just end this misleading right now.

Parliamentary committees have the right to call for documents. It's precedent. It's clear. Repeatedly, we have the right. We saw it with the vaccine documents. We had the right to access the vaccine documents. We had the right to call for documents. The public service is not breaking the law by following the law.

I will just leave it at that. Again, it's politics. It's theatrics. The government is going to filibuster and try to protect the Trudeau Foundation, their government and the Prime Minister. That's fine, but please stop the misleading comments about bureaucrats breaking the law, or this or that.

Again, if they wish to put through motions about investigating one charity or another charity, they're welcome to it. That is their business and that is their right as members of Parliament, but again I would ask them to find a single other charity that has received $125 million of taxpayers' money, that has been involved and has received illegal donations linked to Beijing, the Communist Chinese government, the PRC, or another one that has been accused of being involved in thought-influencing the Prime Minister.

I'll leave it at that.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor.

Then I see Ms. Bradford.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On our side, we may have agreed to the study, but it doesn't mean that we have to agree to the amendment.

The motion is to be amended by adding, before the words “all documents related to any audit”, the following: “And, as requested by the committee in its Report No. 27 asking the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation”.

It's really concerning to me, as it's been mentioned by a number of my colleagues here, how it doesn't protect CRA officials. It doesn't protect individuals. All documents related to the audit by the committee.... That's a lot. I'm sure these hard-working public servants, when they took on the job, would have never expected to anticipate being asked to break the law.

Then there are the concerns of other charities that accept donations. This amendment targets a specific charity and its donors. Do we really want to open this line of examination? I think we're going down a rocky path there. There are many other charities that could be examined and with that, there are many other donors. Is this really the direction we want to go in?

What about the examination of donors who supported the freedom convoy? I question the motives for these donors and how they influence our politics. We all remember that time. It was quite something to hear from the various news sources how so many donations came from the U.S. Certainly the dollar amount donated by Canadians was quite a lot too. I'm sure that they would also not want their names revealed.

This would lead us to open doors to all sorts of organizations, which Mr. Fragiskatos has already mentioned, like the gun organizations. I just feel that we really have to think about this amendment and what it represents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor again.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I see it's one o'clock, so I'd like to adjourn the meeting.

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

Let's vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I still have a speakers list here, so I don't think I can cut to the vote.

Is there any dissent to adjourn the meeting?

Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.