Government Operations Committee on June 21st, 2022

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, may I challenge your ruling, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Yes.

A challenge is a non-debatable motion.

(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

At this point in time, we will entertain discussion of the amendment by Mr. McCauley.

I see Mr. Johns' hand is up. Then we'll have Ms. Vignola.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Vignola, for putting this motion forward. It's an excellent motion to get some accountability. It's a reckless amount of money that's been spent on this trip and it needs some accountability. We need better transparency. I share Mr. Housefather's rationale that all the media is saying this falls under DND. However, if the chair is consulted prior...that's why I supported the decision on the vote.

Mr. McCauley put forward an amendment for September 23, which I think is reasonable. That gives us time to come back in the fall and to have a witness, but I do think we should amend it so it doesn't read that it's the Governor General. It should be someone from DND who should be testifying at OGGO. I don't believe we have the power to summon the Governor General to the committee.

We should be requesting that someone from DND who is responsible for travel for the Governor General testify before the committee to explain themselves. That would be the change I think we should make.

I'd love to hear more from my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Just to be clear, in the amendment that was put forward it's the Office of the Governor General and not the Governor General. Just to be clear, that was what the amendment stated.

Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

I agree with Mr. McCauley's proposals because they simplify the motion.

I get the sense that Mr. Johns would also like us to invite someone from National Defence. Would he like to propose a subamendment?

When my colleagues have the chance, I would like them to consult our committee website, where states its mandate. It clearly states: “The Committee is mandated to examine and conduct studies related to the following organizations”, and the Office of the Governor General's Secretary is on that list. So we can ask questions about this. It is part of our mandate.

It is a lot of money, we can all agree on that. If you feel we need a subamendment to speak with National Defence officials, I see no problem with that.

Nonetheless, someone agreed to breakfasts and lunches that cost $350 per person. That is a huge amount. I cannot afford that. I do not know if anyone here can afford that. We are not even talking about alcohol. Someone decided this would be a good idea and decided to go ahead with it because it would be fun.

We have to wonder. I understand the Governor General's role and I know she represents the Queen. Will we accept this for a long time? Will we allow our money to be spent that way?

If you would like to welcome someone from National Defence in connection with the decision by the Office of the Governor General's Secretary, I do not see a problem with that. I completely agree with what Mr. McCauley proposed. I always work towards consensus and will continue to do so.

It is unbelievable, $80,000, and that does not even include the other expenses. I do not know if I am the only one, but to my mind that is simply too much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To answer Ms. Vignola's question, I would say we all find it excessive. That is not the issue. The question is who is responsible and which office made that decision. In my opinion, it is National Defence and not the Office of the Governor General's Secretary that is not responsible. So it should be up to the Standing Committee on National Defence to look into that.

The Governor General was on the flight, but it was not her or her office who committed or approved these expenditures. If our committee determines that it is within our mandate, even if the Office of the Governor General's Secretary did not make the decision on these expenditures, then I think we should modify the amendment.

Mr. Chair, just to briefly repeat what I was saying, I think we all find this excessive. I think we all find it absurd that meals at these amounts were charged and think that somebody should certainly look into it.

The reason I raised that was that the Governor General's office has made it clear they had nothing to do with it, that it was the Department of Defence and the Royal Canadian Air Force. To me it would have been the defence committee that would have been the most appropriate to study it, but if we want to study it the people we should be calling are not at the Governor General's office. They're at the defence department.

I would like to subamend Mr. McCauley's amendment to change the words, “the Office of the Governor General” to “a representative of the Department of National Defence”.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'm sorry. Mr. Johns has moved a subamendment to add the—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It's not to add, Mr. Chair. Out of respect, Mr. Johns didn't actually propose a subamendment. He said he wanted to hear from his colleagues. I've proposed a subamendment, which is to strike the words “the Office of the Governor General” from Mr. McCauley's amendment and to replace it with “a representative of the Department of National Defence.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay, so right now we're discussing the subamendment as proposed by Mr. Housefather.

I have hands all over the place and I'm going to go with Mr. Johns first, then Mr. Lobb and then Mr. Perkins.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

This makes sense to me because what we're hearing and learning is that it is National Defence that's in charge, so they're the ones who need to be before our committee and be accountable. Again, I guess it's six of one and half a dozen of the other as to whether it's at defence or whether it's here, but having National Defence come and appear before us, we're going to be able to ask questions and probably make some recommendations from that. I don't believe that the Governor General's staff have anything to do with it.

That's what the media's saying and that's what we're hearing from all the research we've done as well.

Let's get the right people here. I don't want to play politics. I just want to get the answers and I want to do it right. I don't want to be disrespectful. Let's get DND here. That's why I support this amendment. I think it's the right way to go, and we're absolutely all appalled by what took place overall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

To be clear, we're talking about a subamendment to change “the Office of the Governor General” to “the Department of National Defence.”

With that, I will go to Mr. Lobb, then Mr. Perkins and then Ms. Vignola.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I think we should just get on with this and make a decision. It was for the Governor General. It wasn't for a general or anybody else. This isn't the Governor General's office's first rodeo. They certainly have many years of experience with these things. To just say, “Let's just go ahead and whatever it is you'll just surprise us. We didn't have any idea,” I think that's a bad defence.

If you want to include both offices, I would be open to that. You could have the military and the Governor General's office if you want as well, but if the same thing had happened to the Prime Minister.... It doesn't matter which political party, if you say, “I don't know. It's not my fault. These guys did it,” no, it was for you and it was your responsibility. I think we all carry those same responsibilities.

I leave it at that. Again, this isn't until September so things might change. Maybe it gets resolved anyhow, so I just say let's move on here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think both offices are involved. I have in a past life worked for a minister and dealt with DND both on the Challenger jets—

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Excuse me for a second, Mr. Perkins, because we have the French translation on the English channel. We just need to correct that.

Would you like to start again, Mr. Perkins?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually think it's not either-or. I think it's both. Mr. Housefather's motion is to focus on DND rather than the Governor General. I know in a past life when I worked for a minister, I booked Challenger jets and I booked the larger jet as well. The office of the minister is involved in the discussion about what food is provided and of course in this case there was also, I believe, alcohol involved. DND does not handle alcohol, so the Governor General's office would have been involved in those decisions about the alcohol that was served.

I think DND manages the plane. They provide the pilots. They do all the logistics. They serve the food, but the choices usually of what happens on the plane, what food and beverages are served on the plane, are made by the office that is booking.

I think there is probably a bit of responsibility on both sides, DND and the Office of the Governor General. I would fear that, with the amendment on this, we'd be only getting a small part of the story and missing the ultimate accountability, which is the Office of the Governor General, which would have approved whatever was proposed for that plane.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We'll now go to Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would agree to adding National Defence so we can get to the bottom of the issue. I cannot believe, however, that National Defence decides what the Governor General will eat and that she has no say about her own menu. She is the Queen's representative. I find it hard to believe that the Queen would never have any say about what is on her plate.

I think it is a shared responsibility. For that reason, I am open to the idea of meeting the officials involved, from both organizations. If one of them is not involved, that would shed light on the situation and the problem. Two organizations are involved in an event, but they do not communicate. Owing to this lack of communication, expenditures are made which, as someone who has had to use food banks in the past, I find more than excessive. If the organizations do not speak to each other, the study would at least show that and in particular highlight the importance of communication. We have to stop working in silos. It is important.

We are talking about taxpayers' money, public funds. As I said, I have had to use food banks in the past. I am holding back from saying certain words because I would like to use some typically swearwords from Quebec. It is insulting, to say the least.

I agree to adding National Defence, but we also have to talk to people from the Office of the Governor General's Secretary to get a clear and complete understanding of the decision-making process that led to these expenditures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

I see Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I wish to respond to Mr. Perkins.

When he brought up the subject of alcohol, it's very clear from the Order Paper, in answer to Mr. Barrett, that “Catering costs include the cost of food, non-alcoholic beverages, and associated fees, including catering handling and delivery, storage, cleaning and disposal of international waste, airport taxes, administrative fees, security charges, and local taxes. There is no alcohol that was included in those costs.

The second thing is that I want to draw the committee's attention again to the statement from Rideau Hall where it says, “The Governor General shares the public's concern in regards to expenses” points out the fact that it's DND that is responsible and not her office.

Again, I fail to see the benefit of calling the Governor General or her office when it's clear that there's another group responsible. Indeed, again, if this committee hears from DND and the RCAF, and they say to us, “No, the Governor General was involved” or “The Governor General's office had a hand in deciding on the meals and knew the costs,” or whatever else, the committee can then call the Governor General's office.

At this point, I don't think we have a basis to do that, because they've said they had nothing to do with it. I just don't think it's fair to call on people who have said they had nothing to do with the decision when we can call on the people who did.

Those are my points, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this. Like many others, I was dismayed when we read the reports on the costs associated with those flights.

I take what my friend, Mr. Housefather, is saying, but I also know that, as members of Parliament, we are put into a place to hold those in higher offices to account and to find out those questions that our electors have. Canadians want to know.

Canadians have been going through some very troubling and difficult times in the last couple of years. To see two bills such as what was reported in the media reflects poorly on all of us—Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, Green—who are elected officials. It also diminishes the trust that Canadians have in us, as elected officials, that we can manage taxpayers' money.

Once again, I'll remind those around this table that it is not our money; it is taxpayers' money.

My understanding is that the subamendment being proposed is to leave off the Governor General. The Governor General's is among the highest offices in this land, but it is not above scrutiny as well. We should have the Governor General come to answer this. If it is indeed her testimony that she had nothing to do with it, so be it. However, she should appear before this committee to have those words, so that the committee, using its authority as a parliamentary committee, can question and look into these matters, which are the matters that matter most to Canadians.

I believe it is fully appropriate to have the Governor General appear before this committee, as well as the RCAF and DND.

Mr. Chair, I'll leave it at that. I think it's important to do this. I've already stated that I think a number of things diminish the trust of Canadians. What we do as parliamentarians and as leaders of this country.... The 338 members of Parliament are elected to be the voices and to be the eyes and ears of Canadians. I think it's imperative that this committee does the just job that they have been selected to do.