Evidence of meeting #70 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rosenberg.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
I agree, but not necessarily about making that investigation part of the broader inquiry into foreign interference. Allow me to explain.
I think it's important for the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and its reputation that answers be provided sooner than it would take to set up a public inquiry. I know that the foundation has initiated a process with an independent law firm. The decision isn't up to me, but I hope the details surrounding the situation can be cleared up fairly quickly, because it's vitally important for the foundation.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for six minutes, please. Over to you.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I also want to thank the witnesses for being present, particularly Mr. Rosenberg. I apologize for not being there in person; I'm just getting over a bit of a sinus issue.
I want to follow up on the questioning by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. She mentioned, and I'm sure you've heard this in the past, my questions for one of your former colleagues, Edward Johnson. I'm certain that you could probably anticipate some of my questions in relation to the public inquiry or the need for an independent inquiry, which I was pleased to hear you recommend in your answers to one of my colleagues. That's where I'll focus some of my attention.
Mr. Rosenberg, you've worked in the public service and you've worked for Canadians. I appreciate that service. I want to extend my thanks as well for that service. I want to get your advice, your knowledge and your experience in relation to how we combat this kind of perception of foreign interference. For example, my own perspective is that we need to have a public inquiry for the purpose of trying to combat the perception of a weakening democracy. I think it's something Canadians right across the country feel as well.
I'll focus my questions directly on the need to address foreign interference, on the role the Trudeau Foundation, or at least the media, has played in damaging the perception of our democracy, and on ways we can get past this in a credible way to ensure that Canadians can rebuild that confidence. I think that's an important project, one that is worthwhile and that I think this committee could assist in.
I asked your former colleague Edward Johnson just last week whether he would support a call by the Auditor General to investigate the Trudeau Foundation. He responded positively and said that he had actually sent a letter to the Auditor General at that time to request an audit. It was received by our committee, and we received a letter from the Auditor General that made it clear she wasn't able to do that. In reference to that fact, I tabled a motion that called on the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, to begin an investigation for this committee. It passed, and I was pleased to see that. I was pleased to hear your remarks in relation to this.
Do you still agree that the CRA should investigate the Trudeau Foundation?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
The CRA decides what it's going to do. I saw briefly some of the testimony from CRA senior officials here. I think Mr. Johnson said, yeah, okay; if the CRA wants to look at the Trudeau Foundation, that would probably be desirable at this point, because there's been so much noise and so much smoke raised about this that there has to be some sort of a process to sort it out.
With all due respect, it's not going to happen at a parliamentary committee. There's just a lot of partisanship within a parliamentary committee. It's going to have to be another process.
The CRA is one way of doing it, and I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive. What the Trudeau Foundation is trying to do now with an independent forensic audit by a firm it has no association with, as I understand, is another way of doing it. There are ongoing discussions—I read the newspapers—between representatives of all the political parties on what the way forward is after Mr. Johnston's resignation.
I wonder, given some of the issues.... I'm not saying the Trudeau Foundation issue doesn't need to be looked at. It absolutely does, but there are a lot of issues that need to be looked at in terms of foreign interference: bullying and intimidation of expat populations, hostage diplomacy, trade sanctions and the kinds of censorship practices that are alleged to have been carried out by the Confucius Institutes. These are quite different from what we were looking at in terms of this “gift” to put on conferences. We could have put on a conference about Tiananmen Square, and these guys would not have had a word to say about it. It's a pretty weird influence operation, because it likely would have ended up embarrassing the Chinese.
They started off saying, “Let's do scholarships.” Scholarships are a much lower-risk proposition than conferences. Even if the conferences had a benign name, I know the people in the Trudeau Foundation. They would not have let human rights go. They would not have let climate change go. You would have had a very robust discussion, and it's not something the Chinese would have wanted to hear, so I thought this was actually great.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
That's interesting.
Mr. Rosenberg, those ideas aside, I think it's important that a public, independent inquiry.... You mentioned an independent inquiry, which I agree with. I believe in a public, independent inquiry.
When I asked Mr. Johnston that question, he responded that he didn't believe a public inquiry was something he would agree with.
Do you agree with Mr. Johnston about that?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
My main point is that I would like to see whatever is done with respect to the Trudeau Foundation done quickly, because I think the Trudeau Foundation needs certainty to be able to move ahead.
We are discussing this in public. This committee—
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
With all due respect, Mr. Rosenberg, what the Trudeau Foundation needs is independent of what Canadians need, so your request for a quick time for that investigation doesn't seem to me to be an important factor as to why this public inquiry is important.
I believe a public inquiry is important, but not because of the expediency required by the Trudeau Foundation in order to continue its business. It's important because Canadians need to have robust confidence in our democratic system. That is why I believe in a public, independent inquiry.
I understand the work by Mr. Johnston to have his own commission on that, but it's something I still believe is important. I will continue to ask you in my follow-up about why you believe a public inquiry is something that's so different from an independent inquiry, and why you won't agree.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais.
Mr. Rosenberg, if you have a brief response, I will hear it, please.
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I want to acknowledge that you have been very passionate about this. Virtually all of your questions to Ted Johnson were about this.
In the final analysis, it's not the Trudeau Foundation that's going to decide how this is going to go forward. The content of the large public inquiry is going to be decided in discussions between the representatives of all the parties.
We will see where it comes out. If it happens that it's part of a public inquiry, then the Trudeau Foundation will deal with it.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much. I will turn now to our next round.
Mr. Brock, you have the floor for five minutes, please.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Rosenberg, would you agree with me that the foundation prides itself on its highest ethical and moral standards?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Okay.
Would you agree with me, sir, that in the last couple of years, that perception has been rocked a bit? First, we had the Beijing influence. We have the questionable donation to the foundation. Most recently, we have a $1.25-million lawsuit launched by a former scholar of the foundation, involving a mentor.
You would agree with me that this sort of compromises its overall image.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
No.
Mr. Rosenberg, I would like to ask you some questions.
This lawsuit was launched March 31, 2022. I understand that the foundation has yet to file a defence.
Is that your understanding?
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure, because I'm not a defendant in this lawsuit.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I see.
To your knowledge, sir, is there a concurrent criminal investigation as well?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Okay.
Now I'm going to ask you some questions regarding some of the commentary within the statement of claim itself.
According to the plaintiff, she reported the harassment to the foundation and was immediately disbelieved.
Specifically, sir, she brought this to your attention on June 11, 2018.
You contacted her and requested to speak with her in relation to the allegation. On June 22, you spoke by phone. During the call, it's reported that you accused the plaintiff of “blowing things out of proportion.” You questioned her about the incidents, “demanding to know if it was a 'familiar squeeze', a 'sexual squeeze' or a 'caress.'”.
Do you recall making that statement?
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
Are you reading from the plaintiff's statement of claim?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative