Government Operations Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes: “for the years selected by the committee”.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I know that's complex and I should have had this all written down, but we just talked about it before the meeting, so I did my best.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You just hate us.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Hate you? No, not at all. I love all you guys.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We have an amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I tease you about this, but what you're asking for does seem over-complicated.

A lot of this stuff we can get from an order paper question, and the National Post was able to get their ATIP request back within a month, so I question the desire to only say two years here. We can do an order paper on the costs and the breakdown—liquor, food, security and travel—and get that back in 45 days.

The other items are the actual paperwork, and if the National Post was able to get it within a month or two, I'm told, I'm not sure why we'd want to limit any of it.

I'd hate to also exclude trips inside Canada. I'd like to get an idea of expenses in Canada, something they can show us that says, “Well, this is what the costs in Canada are—nothing.” Great, and if it's nothing, let's not bother, but I don't want to exclude them out of hand.

If it's one trip from each or even the last couple of trips within Canada that show normal numbers, then okay, they have it fixed for Canada, but I'd hate to exclude internal travel until we know for sure what their cost controls are like.

I'm not proposing any changes to Ms. Vignola's motion or what you have. I just feel that it's a bit over-complicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. McCauley, are you done?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

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

I'm concerned about the domestic part. We're really focused on this international foreign travel. I think it's going to be really complicated if we ask for domestic travel, because we heard from the witnesses that they're stopping at air bases and they're using military aircraft and they're using some commercial domestic travel. It's going to be so erratic that I don't believe we'll be able to have good comparables. I think it's going to be.... I just don't want to see us wasting taxpayers' money pulling everything out from everywhere when it's not going to be something we can use.

I want to make sure that we can use the foreign part. It's going to be crystal clear. I want to make sure that we look at the last three Governors General and all their expenses so that we can make a true evaluation of where this came from. That's just my thought.

We did hear from witnesses who were clear that they use military bases. It's hard to quantify. That's what we heard.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's what I'm saying. We can certainly use the order paper for the domestic stuff. If it is crazy, we can look into it more.

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

I'm open to the conversation. I wanted to throw in that we heard that. I want to get to the bottom of this as much as everybody else does.

I think the timeline for getting documents.... We have to be reasonable in order to make sure we get the documents. We've been told things about numbers and then the next day, we've learned that they're different. I want to make sure that we get the right numbers, so let's give a reasonable time frame, but we want this information quickly as well.

I support what you're proposing. I think we all want to move forward with this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Go ahead, Ms. Vignola.

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

I would be fine with asking for a list of all the trips, including domestic ones, but I think we should focus on international trips for the time being and use the Order Paper questions to find out more about the trips within Canada. If we see anything inappropriate on that side as well—so not just in international travel—we could decide to include that in our study.

As for the list of years, it's not that I disagree. It's simply that I don't understand which criteria we would use to determine what is an appropriate baseline trip or year and what isn't. Would it be 2014, 2015 or 2017? Call me a bookworm, if you like, but I prefer to have all the documents, as opposed to just half. The period referred to in my motion is from 2015 to 2022. That's my criterion: seven years. You're proposing six. Would that make a big difference in the number of documents? I don't know.

I appreciate that this covers a large number of documents, some of which are archived and would need to be compiled, analyzed and so forth. Anything having to do with the Governor General is kept. After all, we still have documents pertaining to King John and Richard the Lion-Heart, so I understand that. What concerns me, though, is how we are going to determine which years and trips constitute appropriate baselines, when we could do an initial analysis and then decide which trips we are going to focus on.

For that reason, I'm going to keep my motion as is. I'm fine with removing the reference to Canada, as long as we not rule out the possibility that we may need to examine domestic travel at some point. I need clarity on how we are going to determine which years and trips we're going to look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I have Mr. Paul-Hus and then Mr. Housefather.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, in light of the numerous amendments that were proposed, I'd like to have the clerk send us the amended version so we know exactly what we are voting on.

Second, I want to discuss the amendment pertaining to the two years for each Governor General. Since the period referred to in the motion is from 2015 to today, let's start with January 1, 2015. David Johnston was the Governor General then, right up until October 2017. That's about a year and three-quarters, so nearly two years for Mr. Johnston. Ms. Payette's term began in 2017 and ended in 2021, when she resigned three years and four months later. One of those years was during the pandemic, and since she didn't really travel during that time, we can round it down to almost two years. Ms. Simon took office in 2021, a year and two months ago.

I don't see why we need to specify a period since the time frames more or less line up, with Ms. Payette not travelling for a year because of the pandemic. She was having Rideau Hall renovated, but that's another story.

The expenses are posted on the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General's website. You can even find charts showing the variations in spending. It's public information, so there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to get the supporting documents quickly.

You said that the information wasn't easy to pull together, but at the very least, some information is already available on the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General's website. The departments of national defence and foreign affairs would have to do some work to provide the rest.

My comment really has to do with the two years. I think it should be January 1 to today, regardless of how long each Governor General was in office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Before I go to Mr. Housefather, Mr. Paul-Hus has asked for a copy of the amendments.

I'll throw out there that you can adjourn the debate on this if you want to, until you see that copy. I will leave that there for now.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

First, Mr. Chair, I was hoping that this amendment would be an amicable one. I've given it to the clerk, and he can't disseminate it until it's translated. I'm not going to be able to draft it and translate it in five minutes. That's not plausible or possible right now.

I listened carefully to what my fellow members had to say.

My point was that Mr. Johnston was the governor general for a long time, not just in 2015 and 2016. The trips he took in 2010 and 2011 may be particularly relevant. It's not just that the governor general is linked to this government or that government. Former governor general Johnston took trips in different years, so we may not necessarily want to look at the expenses for two years in a row.

What isn't difficult to put together is the list of trips the governors general took. My understanding is that information on trips taken in previous years is located in more than one place. The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General has a fairly small team, so its capacity to find all this information for the committee is limited.

The date for producing the documents should be postponed until January because they can't be produced by October 31. It is possible, however, to provide the information related to the 2022 expenses and the list of trips, of course.

Then, the committee can decide whether it wishes to review the information for each year. That would be up to the committee. My preference would be to look at two years for each governor general. Once the committee sees the list of trips, it may not be unreasonable for the committee to decide that it wants to look at Mr. Johnston's expenses for 2011 and 2012, instead of 2015 and 2016. It's really everything, because the other expenses, generally speaking, don't change from year to year, except for international travel.

If the honourable member wants the list of international and domestic trips, I'm fine with that, as long as the supporting documents we request pertain solely to international trips for those years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Go ahead, Ms. Vignola.

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

I would really like it if we could reach a consensus. October 31 may not be tomorrow, but it's not that far away.

How would my fellow members feel if we were to start with the expenses for international trips? As suggested, we could ask for the information pertaining to the trip to the Middle East and a list of the trips taken since 2010—the year when Mr. Johnston was appointed—to be provided by October 31. On October 15, we could meet with witnesses we want to invite, if possible, of course. That comes back to what Mr. Housefather proposed.

Then, we could set aside time to review the list of trips and determine whether we wanted information on all the trips, or choose the years we want to focus on.

Does that work for you?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes.

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

In the end, the only major change is that we won't be looking at domestic trips for the time being.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

We can't ask for the information mentioned in item three to be produced by the end of October. We would have to request that information at a later date, in other words, once the committee decides which years it's going to review.

The only information we are asking to be produced in October is the information in item four, that is, the list of trips and the expenses for 2022.

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

We are also asking for the list in October.