Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I was hoping there would be agreement from the mover that it would be okay to discuss it on Thursday, and from you, Mr. Chair, to say it could be on the agenda.

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

I don't mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Is the committee comfortable having a discussion on this on Thursday, after you've had a chance to see things in writing? I'm seeing nods around the room to do that at this point in time, so we will add that to Thursday.

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

We will now go to Ms. Vignola. She will read her motion into the record.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last Friday, you all received a copy of the notice of motion, which I will take the time to read out, in keeping with our practices:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the expenses of the Office of the Governor General’s Secretary for its representation activities abroad and in Canada for the years 2015 to the present; that, in light of the information disclosed during the meeting on Thursday, September 22, concerning the testimony of representatives of organizations related to the decision-making process and the use of budgets by and for the Office of the Governor General’s Secretary, the committee invite the following witnesses to testify: Christine MacIntyre, Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol Branch, Office of the Governor General’s Secretary; Stewart Wheeler, Chief of Protocol of Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; Senior officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage; Senior representatives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Any other witnesses whom the committee deems appropriate to invite; that testimony take place over for at least three meetings and that the committee begins its study on Monday, October 24, 2022; that Department of National Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police table the financial reports of the expenses incurred during the trips of the Governor General from 2015 to present, as well as copies of invoices associated with the March 2022 trip to the Middle East of the Office of the Governor General’s Secretary, broken down by trip and by item of expenditure including, in particular, accommodation costs, catering costs, caterer costs, travel costs, security costs, and costs for alcohol and drinks, indicating the number people included for each delegation; that the said documents be submitted in English and French and forwarded no later than Friday, October 21, 2022, at noon to the Clerk of the Committee and that the Clerk forward them upon receipt to the members of the committee; that the committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.

I know that the motion is particularly lengthy, which is why we put it on notice.

The reason I am asking for this is simply that, after our committee meeting, we obtained the details through a newspaper. And yet, the witnesses we had were, apparently, unable to give us certain numbers because they didn’t have them on hand, even though a newspaper was able to obtain them on very short notice. I am not saying that the committee was duped, but there are questions to ask about how prepared, informed and competent people were able to appear before a committee without any numbers, when a newspaper was able to get them.

Furthermore, we must make sure that expenses are actually reviewed, that taxpayers are aware of what happened over the last five years. We also need to be able to establish a comparison. My request is not at all belligerent. I simply want to be able to make comparisons and get the final story. I won’t go so far as to say that it is insulting, but I think we must ask detailed questions and give people time to prepare. The motion was tabled in early June 2022. Some preparation was still required, some information had to be gathered. And yet, the committee was unable to get those numbers, when a newspaper received exact details.

My goal is simply to shed light on the situation and be able to make recommendations, with all due humility, to ensure that this type of situation never happens again. These are tax dollars from our taxpayers, some of whom are having trouble making ends meet.

And then there are the emails we received. Since we are on the list for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I imagine that some of you received quite a few.

Personally, to date, I have received 500 or 600 emails from people who are outraged by these expenditures. That said, I am a Francophone, which means that Francophones are more likely to write to me than to you. That being said, there are still nine the Anglophone provinces. And so, I imagine that you received many more than I did.

That’s the long and the short of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

Now I have Mr. Jowhari, and then Mr. McCauley.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had the opportunity to read the motion. In my mind, I compartmentalized it into certain aspects. I started with the value. I agree that we need to really look at and understand the money that the taxpayers entrust us to spend in the right way. Then there are protocols in place. Gaps have been identified. There are mitigation strategies. From a value proposition of a study of this nature, I definitely support it.

I also looked at the sense of urgency. I looked at the sense of urgency versus other topics that are in play. I had the opportunity to do a little bit of number crunching. By the end of this week, we will have completed our first session on procurement diversity. We will be left with three more sessions on outsourcing contracts, three more sessions on procurement diversity, and at least one session on shipbuilding. I believe the supplementary estimates (B) are going to come to our committee, so there are going to be at least two meetings on the supplementary estimates (B). Based on my numbers, a total of about nine meetings are in front of us.

Now we have another motion, which is relevant to outsourcing, so that's now 10. This will take us way beyond the 24th. With the prescribed start date of October 24, I'm just looking at a pragmatic sequencing of events that we have and then comparing the urgency of that. I don't want to undermine or in any way say that this is not important. I'm not talking about the importance. I'm talking about the urgency.

Also, I want to be able to discuss why there would be three meetings. Do you have in mind that each one of the departments would be discussed separately? I'm just trying to understand. Three meetings means about six hours. In this session, we will have only another six or seven meetings remaining, if there is anything else we want to do. This would be 50% of what's left. I'd really like to get an understanding of that. The start time, which I talked about, would be around October 24.

Also, there's the volume of data. You've gone back to 2015. Can you expand on that? Why 2015? I would understand if you said, “I would like to get an understanding of the breakdown of 2022 and the specific trip.” Then, if other information revealed itself, you would be in a position to come back and say, “Hey, you know what? This thing popped up, so now I would like to get a better understanding.” Going back to 2015, I feel.... I'm just talking about myself. That's the time when I started. Why not 2010 or 2019?

Again, going back to 2015 is going to generate a lot of information. A lot of information on that will be coming to us on October 21, and then we will need to process that to get to a meaningful contribution on October 24. It is an amount of information that I personally won't be able to process.

I would like to put on the table that I see the value. Again, it has to be put into perspective—the urgency, the scope, the number of meetings, the start time and the volume of data being asked for. It would be good to get some feedback on that so we could put it into perspective. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to work together, if you're amenable, over the next while to address the urgency, the value, the scope, the number of meetings, the start time and the volume of data, and probably, in a very structured manner, to have one meeting to get an understanding of what happened in 2022, and then see whether we'll discover something else.

To me, this is going to open up a floodgate. It's a shotgun approach, and I understand that. If the objective of this, which I truly see the value of, is coming up with recommendations, I'm not sure how that shotgun approach is going to give us that.

I thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I have Mr. McCauley next.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Jowhari, and thanks, Ms. Vignola, for the motion.

In general, I'm in support of the motion, for the big reason that we were all here when they testified, and we got a copy of all the receipts. Both parties from the Governor General's office and the RCAF very clearly either mistakenly misinformed or misled this committee or purposefully misled this committee. There were very specific questions on the costing, which we were misinformed of, and very specific questions on the menu, which we were very clearly misinformed of.

I want this committee to hear from them on why the committee was mistakenly or purposely misled on two very simple, basic questions that all witnesses had all the information of. It wasn't like our previous witnesses earlier today, where, quite honestly, on some of the items, it was, “Well, I don't know, because it's pulled out from five years ago.”

All of our witnesses had the answer very clearly, and yet they gave the wrong information to the committee. I would like to support this and have them come back and explain to Canadians. I got 1,300 emails in one day on the issue after the Taxpayers Federation sent it out. I'd like to get to the bottom of the issue and get the straight facts.

So I'm going to support it.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

We have Mr. Housefather, and then Mr. Johns.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin, may I just ask how long we have House resources for in this meeting, since we're past one o'clock?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'm watching the clock. We can go as long as we need to. All of the resources are saying 1:30 p.m.

With that said, there is the option that as we get close to 1:30 p.m., we could move this, like Mr. Johns' motion, to Thursday and continue the discussion at that point in time.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My suggestion is indeed that we move this to Thursday.

Let me explain.

I was also very disappointed to read in the news, the day after our meeting, a list of invoices that seemed different from the information we received. That said, if it were a matter of getting a meeting with witnesses who were present, with proof of all of the expenses associated with the trip, it could be relatively easy to accept. However, I am seeing something here that is much larger. It will cut into the studies on diversity in procurement and on the issue of subcontracting, which we are currently studying. It follows up on the Defence study, currently ongoing because Mr. McAuley asked to add meetings too.

So, it seems a little unfair to me that important studies for the Liberal Party and the NDP, which we’ve been waiting on for seven or eight months, are being pushed back again because of another study. I don’t agree with that. I think three meetings is a lot. If we have to go back to 2015, it involves Governor General expenses associated with the Government of Canada, because that’s the year the Liberals were elected. You all know there’s no connection between one government and the next and how the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General operates.

I would therefore like to move amendments. I prefer the opportunity to give the amendments more thought, to bring them to the attention of committee colleagues from all parties and try to establish a consensus before Thursday.

I propose to look at this carefully on Thursday, but to look at the amendments first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I now have Mr. Johns and Mr. Paul-Hus, and then I'll end with Ms. Vignola.

Mr. Johns, go ahead.

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

First, I really appreciate the motion, and I support most of it. The only thing is around dates. I agree that we should be going back from 2010 to the present so that we get a full, wholesome look at the expenses over the last 12 years. That said, if we go back to 2010, we should probably give them a bit longer to get the documents to us. It says October 21. Maybe we can extend that to October 31, and maybe we can find a compromise, such as that we start this study no later than November 15, so that we can get it done before Christmas and the holiday season.

However, I agree that we have a lot of studies on the go right now, so it's kind of hard to shelve three studies and add another one, and then we're working on four studies. I'm hoping Ms. Vignola would be open to those kinds of changes, but I do think we should also look at the previous government: What is the difference? Is there a significant decrease or increase in expenses?

Also, for this study, I want to make sure that we get accurate information. By giving the government a bit longer, a few weeks, we can make sure that we get the right information because, clearly, when we're reading in the paper the next day after they testify here that the information has changed, that's not okay. So, I want to make sure that we get accurate information.

Those are my thoughts and my feedback.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Paul-Hus and Mr. Jowhari.

However, I'm going to let Ms. Vignola answer some of the questions that were put out there.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mine is just a clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay.

If she can answer a couple, perhaps that might solve.... I'll let Ms. Vignola speak—I know she was taking down some notes, particularly with regard to some of Mr. Jowhari's questions—so that we don't forget those and we get that in.

Ms. Vignola, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am asking for three meetings, the main reason being I don’t want all of the witnesses to be heard at the same time, if we need to summon witnesses in addition to the three we heard from at the beginning. By having three meetings, which could last about an hour, it would ensure we don’t have a huge panel of witnesses. We could concentrate on those who are present. It’s a matter of time management for questions. It is sometimes disagreeable when three, four or five witnesses appear at the same time, and we have very little time to ask questions. By spreading it out over three meetings, that helps every single one of us, not just me.

As for the calendar, why do we need to go back to 2015? You called my attention to the fact that 2015 is the year the Liberal government was elected. My main reason truly is to get a comparison. The recently appointed Governor General has not made a lot of trips. By going back to 2015, we cover the two years with no travel. That would lead to a better comparison. We could cover from 2010 to 2022, if we want to compare; I see no problem there. We could even go back to 1867 and compare costs with an adjustment for their current value. The goal isn’t to put the government in hot water. I hope you’re starting to get to know me. I am counting on efficiency. I want to make sure taxpayer money is well spent and we understand those expenses, which is why I suggested we go back to 2015. It has nothing to do with Mr. Trudeau’s government being elected. I’m not seeking to establish comparisons with the years of Mr. Harper’s government. It’s simply because we had a pandemic. If that had not happened, I would only have gone back five years instead of seven.

It is indeed a great deal of information, but it should have been collected already. Evidently, it’s already been done because reporters got it before we did. I’m asking to have the same information as them. I am aware that this means a lot of information, but when it comes to invoices, they only apply to travel in March, and not the last seven years. You know I like to sleep, eat and see my family outside of work, like the rest of you.

As for the dates to receive documents and start meetings, naturally, sooner would be better. I want to understand the situation quickly. I don’t like being in the dark.

That said, I agree with Mr. Johns’s suggestion: October 31 for receiving documents and November 15 for the first meeting. Those dates are acceptable. I am comfortable with that. However, I don’t like being in the dark and I prefer to get out of it quickly. Just like on the highway, we don’t like being in the dark.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

We have Mr. Paul-Hus, and then Mr. Jowhari—or are you comfortable with the answer?

We'll to to Mr. Paul-Hus anyway.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On our side, we very much welcome the Bloc Quebecois motion. That being said, I think there are some little changes to make, and we can resume debate at the next meeting.

I now request adjournment of the meeting, given the time.

Thank you.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We're adjourning debate until a later date, until Thursday.

Thank you.

I declare the meeting adjourned.