Government Operations Committee on June 21st, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

I am looking around the room to see if there is any further discussion. I am not seeing any at this point in time.

Mr. Perkins.

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

I appreciate what all the members have said on both sides. I'm wondering if there's an ability in this discussion to find a compromise between the proposed subamendment and what the mover of the main amendment is putting.

The mere fact is that we have perhaps a bit of.... I won't call it confusion, but uncertainty as to where the actual lines are drawn and how this happens. If DND is responsible for everything, then it would be advantageous to hear from the Office of the Governor General, so we understand their process in the booking of the flights and how all of that works in the relationship between the two entities.

Having some transparency and clarity for the sake of taxpayers in this whole process and how it works obviously is about the Governor General, but I'm sure it reflects on how all of the executive fleet is used when booked by government officials. It's having some understanding of the relationship between those who book, the choices that are offered to them, how they get made and who is responsible for actually executing it.

For example, is the food a series of menu options with prices that the office that is booking is considering? Is it, as seems to be the implication, that people in the Department of National Defence just choose for those who are the clients essentially—whether it's the Prime Minister or the Governor General or others—and they just accept whatever is given at whatever price?

I would think those on the other end who are booking the facilities would want to understand the cost structure of the flight they're embarking on, each person who comes onto the plane with them and what the cost per person is going forward, in order to understand what amount of taxpayer dollars are being spent in the effort to do whatever it is that they are venturing to do on this travel, whether it's within Canada or abroad.

Perhaps if they don't know that, it's an area for the committee to look at in terms of transparency, because obviously something would need to be changed as a recommendation of this committee in taking a look at it. The decisions about how many people travel and how many people come on the aircraft might actually change with regard to the thoughts of those booking, if they understood the value or the cost of each individual. I would hope, anyway, that the individual would be looking at that and saying that, in this case, it's going to be $80,000 if they add up all the bits and pieces.

Perhaps we should be aware of that and be more conscious of that and ask DND if there are less exorbitant ways to achieve the same thing in terms of the choices being made. I find it difficult to believe. Again, things may have changed since I was a ministerial assistant, way back when I had a lot more hair. We were aware of those choices and we were part of that decision-making process.

It's critical for all of our accountability, as Mr. Doherty outlined, to make sure—I assume that's the primary purpose of this committee—that we're getting value for taxpayer money. It's critical that all those who are benefiting from the support of the taxpayer in the jobs that we do going forward are very conscious every time that we are just people holding an office, that others will come after us to hold those same offices, that we have the highest regard for the choices we make, and that we're not here to live an exorbitant life off of the taxpayer, particularly when we travel. That part of it, in understanding the relationship, would be extremely helpful.

I would ask whether the mover of the subamendment would consider a friendly amendment, perhaps, which would see both of those areas, the Office of the Governor General.... Obviously it's not the Governor General herself, because we can't call the representative of the sovereign before Parliament in that way. Kings have lost their heads over that. It's the office obviously, the people making these decisions.

I have no doubt the Governor General herself was totally unaware of this. Have both of those organizations put before us to get clarity. I'm perfectly willing to hear the answer, of course, that the Governor General and her office, for the record, had absolutely no role. I think it would be interesting to have an understanding of that relationship.

Thank you very much for this consideration. I'm just wondering whether the member, Mr. Housefather, would consider putting that as a friendly amendment—to combine it with the Office of the Governor General. I'll just leave it there and pose that question. Whether or not the member wants to address it, it's obviously up to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

I see that Mr. Doherty's hand is up.

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

Briefly, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the interventions by Mr. Perkins and Mr. Housefather.

I will remind our colleagues that we all travel to get to Ottawa. Back in 2019, my good friend Mr. Johns, who is on this committee.... He and I have some of the highest travel costs among parliamentarians. Back in 2019, it was.... We're always under scrutiny about our travel claims and the travel we have. It is for us to answer to.

As the Governor General is the commander-in-chief of our Canadian Armed Forces, she is among the highest for that. She is in charge of this, and she needs to answer to it. I know all my colleagues travel extensively to get to Ottawa, but I would have to say that Mr. Johns and I—and maybe some others from the west—probably have among the highest travel costs, so we know the scrutiny we are put under on an annual basis for that travel. However, it is imperative that we answer for it. I think it's no different for the Governor General. She needs to be able to come to this committee and explain these bills.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

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

I appreciate the comment by my colleague. I had the lowest travel among all B.C. MPs, and it was a lot of work to do that. I flew economy, and I was really frugal in looking for the cheapest flights possible to save taxpayer money. We are accountable.

I do believe, though, that we need to start somewhere at this committee. We don't have to go straight to the Governor General. Let's find out from DND and her staff, first, who makes the decisions. We can ask that. What oversight does the Governor General have for her travel, office and decision-making when it relates to DND making decisions like this? I believe that would be the right place to start.

Mr. Doherty, I know you're shaking your head, but I am actually not afraid to go there. I'm just saying that I think that starting at the beginning and having someone from her office attend and someone from DND.... I think you can appreciate this, too, Ms. Vignola. Getting some understanding of what the procedures and protocols are, and what kind of oversight exists, I think that would be something basic we could start with. I'm not saying we don't need to expand it, but let's start with ensuring we get the right information.

I still believe DND could have provided all of that. That would have been the right place to go, since they're the ones with authority for all of the catering and planning around those flights. They're under oath. They're not going to lie to us. We can get DND to committee and they're going to explain the process and how the process works. We can then continue to invite witnesses. Nothing precludes us, on this committee, demanding we go further into an investigation into something like this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm listening to my colleagues, and while I honestly find that it should be DND that answers for their own decisions, if the will from other people on the committee is to invite somebody from DND, particularly the Royal Canadian Air Force, to come to committee, together with a representative of the Governor General's office—not her but a representative of her office—I'm fine with varying my amendment. Instead of striking “the Office of the Governor General”, I'll say, “a representative of the Office of the Governor General and a representative of the RCAF from the Department of National Defence”, or whatever, to come. It's clear that the RCAF, the Department of National Defence, is the one that can provide the answers, not the Governor General's office.

If the committee wants to have them here, I'm not going to block that. I just think that we have to have the people who can really answer the questions. I'm willing to listen to my colleagues and change the subamendment, if you allow, Mr. Chair. Rather than striking, I would add the words “and a representative from the Department of National Defence”.

I know I probably need to get unanimous consent to withdraw it and put it back, but if there's consensus, maybe, Mr. Chair, you can just allow it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you. I was about to touch on that issue.

I'm going to look around the room to see if there's consensus to make that change. I'm seeing thumbs up all around the room, which is great.

With that said, I'm going to call the vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: 10 yeas; 0 nays)

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you very much, everybody. We managed to do this.

I want to thank the interpreters, the technicians and everybody for allowing us to go longer. It's greatly appreciated.

I want to thank you all, and wish you all a very exciting and enlightening time over the summer with your families. On behalf of the committee, thank you, everybody, for everything.

With that, we're adjourned.