Public Accounts Committee on June 21st, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The first part of our meeting will be conducted in public to consider two motions. Should we complete our discussion of those two motions, we will then go in camera to review the public accounts 2021 report.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the Chair.

Members participating in person in the room must raise their hand if they wish to speak. Members participating via the Zoom application are to use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated speaking order, so your patience and understanding are appreciated.

As I said, we're starting the meeting today in public, beginning with committee business.

I will recognize Mr. Therrien.

Please indicate which motion you're presenting, and then speak to it briefly.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, good morning.

On Thursday, I put some motions on notice, and the time has come to debate them. I have two.

With your permission, Mr. Chair, I will read the first one. Then, we can discuss it and move on to the next. That would be the best way to proceed.

I will read the motion slowly, so the interpreters can do their job properly.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertakes a study of the expenditure of nearly $100,000 in public funds by the Governor General of Canada for catering services during an eight day tour of the Middle East in March 2022; and that the Committee invites the Governor General to appear before the Committee for a period of two (2) hours on or before June 23, 2022.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will explain my reason for proposing the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, go ahead. You have a few minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Everyone is aware of what happened. We were informed that the Governor General incurred very significant expenditures, and obviously that caught our attention and set off alarm bells. The average person would see it as exorbitant spending.

Both the committee and Parliament are tasked with ensuring the sound management of public funds. At a time when people are telling us how much they are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living goes up, we find out that the new Governor General, who has been on the job for less than a year, has already picked up some peculiar habits. As a result, she has racked up quite a bill, to say the least.

According to the information we received, her trip was nine days long in all. Since we last spoke, Mr. Chair, we learned new information from the media, which shed more light on the whole situation. It is all the more important that the Governor General appear before the committee. As I said, we now know more about the situation, but not enough to dispense with her appearance before the committee.

I'd like to share some of the information we learned from the media, information corroborated by the Department of National Defence.

On the trip with the Governor General were 29 of her colleagues—I wouldn't know what else to call them, but they were accompanying the Governor General—and 17 security and logistics personnel.

We now know that the bill wasn't $92,000 or $93,000. It was reviewed and lowered, and actually ended up being $80,000. I'm not sure why exactly, but it doesn't really matter. The money was for two lunches, three breakfasts and snacks. It did not include alcohol or dinners. It did not include the expenses for the duration of the nine-day trip.

I wrote the figures down. The average person wants to know what they cover. As an average person, myself, I would describe the amounts as exorbitant. Let's say the snacks cost $5,000. These aren't the kinds of snacks you buy from Mondoux. They went all out. It works out to $319 per meal. We are talking breakfasts and lunches for everyone on board, even the crew, assuming the food was available to everyone.

Here are my questions, and I may have more. I am simply trying to show how shocking this is and how much information we are missing.

First of all, who are all those people? Why does the Governor General have 29 people travelling with her?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I don't disagree with the member's right to bring such matters to committee, and I won't say that the issue needs to be dismissed out of hand—I'm not of that view. However, before he—because I get the feeling that he's getting ready to go on.... As a courtesy, I suppose, before he does that, I would ask you to confirm with the clerk whether or not this motion is, in fact, in order, because I don't see—with all due respect to the member—how it fits within the mandate of the committee. I've looked at the mandate letter of the committee closely, and there's no.... I just don't see the fit. I would put that to you, Mr. Chair: to confer with the clerk on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Therrien, give me a few moments, please.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Of course, Mr. Chair. That's no problem. It's normal for members to have questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's right.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I agree with the member.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, like you, I did view the Standing Orders to see if this motion was in order. After reviewing the Standing Orders and consulting with the clerk, I believe it is, based on the Standing Orders that outline a number of areas we are meant to study year in and year out. In particular are the reports from the Auditor General, as well as public accounts on an annual basis.

The Standing Orders also permit members to bring forward other areas of study, should they wish to do so. I can cite—and I think I will, because I hope we won't belabour the motions themselves—Standing Order 108(1)(a), which states that the subcommittee shall be empowered to examine and inquire in all such matters as may be proposed by committee members. Standing Orders 108(2)(c) and 108(2)(e) also state that as well; (e) in particular says that we may study “other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.” Finally, 108(3)(g) is in that vein as well: “Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.

Pardon me; hold on a second. That's not quite the point I wanted to make. I'm sorry; in the commentary on Standing Orders 108(2), 108(3) and 108(4), it states, “[T]he Standing Order includes a blanket reference permitting a standing committee to examine any matter relating to the department as it deems necessary and worthwhile.”

I take your point of our priority and where we ought to look, but the Standing Orders do not preclude members from bringing forward more motions like this.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Again, Chair, this isn't a slight towards you at all. I'm looking at the mandate of the committee; it's in front of me here. All of it relates to the public accounts of Canada. All of it relates to the work of the Auditor General. This committee has worked, I think, very well together in the pursuit of that. We still have some outstanding business to deal with that falls in line with the mandate of this committee.

I still don't see how this motion.... To be frank, if it was going to come up anywhere, it would come up in the defence committee, not here. Defence was involved in approving the funding. I just don't see it.

I don't know if members around the table have a point of view on that. It's hard to see, still, even based on your explanation, how something like this can be referred here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'd ask if you could point to something about standing committees that preclude it; I think standing committees don't do that. They allow for additional studies and motions like this to come forward.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Based on that logic, with all due respect, Chair, we could have anything and everything referred to the public accounts committee. If it doesn't have a relevance for this committee.... I don't think this one does. I fail to see the relevance of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This motion relates directly to the expenditures of this case, a voyage, and public accounts is tasked with reviewing expenditures after the fact.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The mandate of the committee is to look at the work of the Auditor General. It is the audit committee of Parliament. There's something in here about the work of the Auditor General and things of this nature.

I'm not saying that the matter can't be pursued. I would rather get on with business that we've been working on already.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

To that, the estimates are reviewed by government operations, but this committee is tasked with looking at the expenditure side of things.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I suppose, Chair, one possible solution is to look at whether or not there's a precedent here. Has this committee ever looked at anything relating to the Governor General and spending under that by the Governor General, their office or anything along these lines? If there has been a time when this committee looked at that, then a precedent would be established, and looking at the motion of our colleague would be in order.

Again, the mandate letter is clear that this committee is tasked with the work of the Auditor General and engaging on the public accounts of Canada.

The public accounts of Canada are very specific. They don't refer to just the general public accounts in the abstract. We're talking about something very specific, and the reports of the Auditor General fit within that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Sure. There are two points.

One is that whether or not there's precedent doesn't necessarily weaken or reduce the committee's opportunity to bring forward motions it deems fit.

Two is that a mandate letter does not supersede the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are what actually govern Parliament. The Standing Orders do not preclude this. In fact, in numerous cases, they permit this committee to examine areas within its mandate that its members wish to bring forward.

That is what we have here. My ruling is that it is in order.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Again, Chair, I don't want to challenge the chair, but it may have to get to that point. You keep referring to the Standing Orders. Can you go over that again?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Sure. I'll do it slowly.

I will hear others if they want to speak on this point of order as well, because once it is challenged, there is no debate; it goes immediately to a vote.

I'm going to read a few points, Mr. Therrien, and then you can have the floor.

Standing Order 108(1)(a) says that the committee shall be “empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters”—it lists several—“as may be proposed by committee members”. There's a broad opening there that allows additional motions and studies to be considered.

Let me go through them and then you can—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This is Standing Order 108(2)(c). At the top, in 108(2), is the introduction, “In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on....” and it lists a number of them. Then 108(2)(c) is “the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department”.

That's talking about the immediate. In this case, they've happened. I think 108(2)(e) is stronger. It refers to “other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.” Again, that gives latitude to do so and it again follows up with should this committee deem it fit.

Finally, I cited 108(3)(g) before. It says, “Public Accounts shall include”—and the next three words are pertinent—“among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada”. While that's specific to those two reviews we do, it does not preclude this committee looking at other matters.

Finally, the commentary from the Standing Orders says, “[T]he Standing Order includes a blanket reference permitting a standing committee to examine any matter relating to the department as it deems necessary and worthwhile.”

I was looking for examples that might disallow it. I didn't find any. Our rules are the Standing Orders. They are in place. They are the governing body for committees, as well as Parliament. In many cases, they indicate what can't be done, and where they are silent or where they offer an interpretation that allows debate, my view is that debate should be allowed to happen.

I'm going to go to Monsieur Therrien first, and then I'll come back to your side.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I was going to make one last point.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll recognize him.

Go ahead, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand your decision and, obviously, I support it. I should tell you that I did my homework, and I had a whole explanation ready to show—a bit like you're doing—why this motion was in order. There is a lot of overlap between what you're saying and the rationale my party put together, so we are quite satisfied with your decision.

I am not at all swayed by the arguments of the honourable Liberal member, whom I have the utmost respect for. I still believe the motion is in order.

Thank you.