Public Accounts Committee on June 15th, 2023

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

If that is true, I am surprised.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Turning now to Ms. Yip, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much for coming and for spending your valuable time on this topic, especially when it doesn't appear that you are so involved.

Based on your experience in public policy and governance, especially governance, do you have any opinions or recommendations you would like to share regarding next steps for the foundation?

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

That's a tough one. Again, I haven't been involved in the foundation since 2018.

Given the controversy that is going on now.... I think the foundation is a worthwhile organization. It's doing very good work. I hope it gets over this controversy in a way that allows it to restore the membership of its board and the mentors and the next round of scholars. I think it does very good work. I hope that can happen.

I recall that when I was at IRPP, our offices were around the corner from the foundation. The problem when I was at IRPP was that, as someone said, the foundation had the wrong name, because at the time it was a Conservative government and it was called the Trudeau Foundation. Then, after the election of 2015, somebody said to me that the Trudeau Foundation had the wrong name.

It seems to me as though you can never have the right name if you're the Trudeau Foundation. I think it has to get over that problem of having the wrong name, if you will.

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

Going along the theme of the name, could you imagine the foundation without the name Trudeau? Do you think there would be any controversy around donations or any allegations of foreign interference?

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

Let me not address the last point. On the first point, again, as I said to Madam Sinclair-Desgagné, the objective was to provide reconnaissance and to recognize former prime minister Trudeau, le père. If you're going to be the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and if why you're doing it is to recognize his contribution, I think it has to have his name on it.

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

In your opening statement, you mentioned that a group was thinking of a way to honour the Prime Minister. Do you recall what ideas were discussed? I know it's a long time ago.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

There were all kinds of ideas. It was a very long time ago. I only remember a couple.

My objective as secretary to cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council was to not allow them to dream up ideas at the table at the moment, but rather to have what I characterized as a structured and disciplined discussion and an assessment of the alternatives. There was everything from renaming a mountain as Mount Trudeau or creating a highway. There was a whole range of other things.

I think cabinet finally settled on this—I'm probably disclosing cabinet secrets here, although it's after 20 years—and came to this judgment because they thought it was apt to have a scholarship named in former prime minister Trudeau's name.

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

You talked about how you were responsible for the structure. What do you mean by the structure?

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

I just mean the decision-making process.

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

Okay.

Several experts in foreign interference and members of the foundation have stated the idea that a donation to the foundation could be considered as a calculated influence operation. I wonder about that, and I'm wondering if you would agree with this analysis.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

I would. I find it passing strange. If I had a million dollars to spend on influence, giving $800,000 to the Université de Montréal and $200,000 or $140,000 or whatever it is to the Trudeau Foundation would be so indirect to make it ineffective. There are, as we know—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

Okay. There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right.

This time, Mr. Desjarlais, you will be taking the Bloc's two and a half minutes, and with your two and a half minutes, that will give you five minutes.

You have the floor, sir.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cappe, I very much appreciate your frankness today. I'm certain that maybe there was some cabinet confidence breached from 20 years ago. I'd hope that you would help us to understand even more, I think, than what we've had at present.

I want to return to the issue of perception, which I think is really the largest issue that I've talked to community members on. It's something that I talk to Canadians regularly about. I attempt to try to find a balance between what I believe to be hyperpartisanship, but also the truth. I do think there is some happy medium in there to which Canadians can find a balance between what is the criticism of partisanship and also the reality that you've also agreed to, that foreign interference is in fact true, and it's happening. Every witness we've had in this committee has verified that fact.

I just finished questioning you about CSIS on the whistle-blower, or the leaker in your perspective, whichever it is. It highlights how these issues are up for perception. Your perception of this issue is something different from what I've heard from Canadians and someone down the street. They all have a mix of issues.

You've answered some really incredible questions about the nature of a public inquiry to restore confidence in our democratic institutions—the nature of a public inquiry, from my own learning at least, and with your expertise as a civil servant for so long.

There's a backward-looking public inquiry, a forward-looking public inquiry, and the question of whether or not some of these details should be released. You gave two really good examples of some justices who have administered public inquiries with better outcomes for Canadians. The inquiries were also found to have concealed important documents of national security, or privacy concerns of private entities.

Should the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation undergo a public inquiry that would, let's say, conceal all private documents for the purpose of privacy? Do you think, in your own private opinion, to that end, it would be a value to Canadians to at least have a recommendation to what you've just stated, that those donations had little or no influence?

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

I have three quick points.

First of all, I thought you were talking about an inquiry into the general point about foreign influence of which the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation would become a part.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Cappe. Yes, I am. I think the Trudeau Foundation and many other foundations matter, at least as they pertain to private donations towards a kind of influence. This isn't just the Trudeau Foundation, I should make mention.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

That's right.

Frankly, on the allegations in terms of Mr. Han and Mr. Chong in Ontario and all of that, I think that's an interesting question.

I would make it looking forward. I think it can be done. I would look at the Rouleau commission on the convoys as the third one that respected the secrecy.

I think now this issue has become so fraught and emotional in the public's mind that I don't think if you did it the way those three commissions were done it would satisfy the demand for publicness. That's my problem.

The only other thing is I remembered Dick Fadden, when he was the director of CSIS, doing an interview—remarkably—with Peter Mansbridge for about 35 minutes. I looked it up. If you google “Dick Fadden Peter Mansbridge”, you'll see it there. At the end of it, Mansbridge, the former anchor at CBC—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'm young, but I'm not that young.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

All right. Well, I have the grey beard.

The point is that Fadden did disclose that there were several provincial cabinet ministers who he thought, alleged, were the subject of foreign interference. This is not a new issue. I thought it was more recent. I was surprised to see that that interview took place 13 years ago.

I'm very much of the view that Parliament, either in its own committees or through a public inquiry, should look at what we should be doing about this. I really don't care what was done. That's, I guess, where we may have a minor difference.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

No, of course, Mr. Cappe. I do appreciate that differentiation.

I think it's also important to take into account that this isn't just China. We're talking about multiple countries, in particular Russia. We're seeing some severe interference there. It's something that's been pretty absent, I think, from the relative conversation of foreign interference.

Would you agree that if there is to be a public inquiry, it should be expanded, looking at other countries and maybe even all countries on foreign interference in Canada?

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

I would make it about foreign interference.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

American interference?