Evidence of meeting #27 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
I'm going to turn now to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Desjarlais, I saw your signal as well.
Mr. Duncan, you have the floor on a point of order, not a debate about the motion.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
That's correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor.
I would just say that to the question of relevance and being in order, I believe that it certainly is, and you related it to the Standing Orders.
I won't refer to or start debate on the second motion that is going to be debated today, but I'll allude to the fact that, as we're reminded often, we can't force the Auditor General, for an example, to undertake a study on something. However, we could recommend and have our voices heard.
I think the motion that's before us is in order. Precedence, as you alluded to earlier, is not a reason for ruling something in or out. We, as a committee, have the opportunity to look at and examine and set our agenda on the work we want to do.
Frankly, I'll have some constructive comments during the debate on the motion itself, but is it common practice? No. However, it does not rule out, in terms of being within our means and abilities to do so, having witnesses come to speak to this issue, to provide public testimony—I say this respectful of the independence of the Auditor General—as to perhaps why this issue needs to be studied or reviewed.
I will note respectfully, without getting into debate, that over the course of the last couple of weeks, in the public discourse, we've seen the Governor General respond. We've seen it batted over to defence. We've seen it in foreign affairs. Everybody seems to be having this...so having officials able to speak to it could provide some background or public testimony as to perhaps why the Auditor General or our committee would feel that this needs to be further talked about.
I think it's within scope and reasonable to do so. We can get to debating the merits of it, and perhaps some friendly amendments and other things that can strengthen the quality of the motion before us.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Desjarlais, on the point of order.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Yes. It's the same point of order on scope and relevancy.
I agree that of course there's merit to the question that this committee may do these things, but we have to consider, in many regards, the work of other committees. As we know, this same motion was tabled in another committee, OGGO. The analyst just pointed out that it's been reviewed in OGGO in the past, so there's a precedent there and no precedent here.
I also want to make very certain that there is actually a committee, which isn't this committee, that has this mandate. I quote from the national defence committee mandate, which says to examine “legislation, activities and expenditures” of “the Canadian Armed Forces”, which is, in this case, responsible for all the decisions on the Governor General's expenses.
There's a committee explicitly responsible for this work, and I'd suggest that this committee do the work to make sure that the department, the Canadian Armed Forces, is responsible for those expenditures, because it's right in its mandate itself. There is precedent for that. It's actually done this before.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Desjarlais, that is something that I also considered. Being aware that defence obviously has the ability to look at the defence department, and being aware that OGGO has previously done it, does not lessen this committee's rights.
My question is simply whether the motion is in order. It's up to committee members at the end of the day to decide if they want to study it or not, but the question I looked at is whether it is in order. Just because another committee can look at it, or another committee has looked at a different motion, doesn't rule out that this committee could consider it. That's the basis that I made this decision on, to allow debate to continue, and before we wrap up at some point, this committee's members will decide whether or not the motion will go ahead.
There are a couple of hurdles to get over here. The first one, obviously, is to proceed with the debate, and then there will be a vote to proceed with a study or not.
Yes, Mr. Fragiskatos.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Chair, based on everything we've heard, and with great respect, because it does not sound like you're going to change your view as to whether or not the motion is in fact in order, I move that we challenge your ruling and vote accordingly.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
It's your right to do so.
I saw Mr. Duncan's hand wave, and I probably should have stopped you.
Mr. Duncan, do you have a point you want to make?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I do, Mr. Chair.
To go into Mr. Desjarlais's point about this debate, the items he's raising about the relevance or not are not ruling that the motion is in order. Whether or not he believes or we believe that this needs to be studied, debate should be had on the merits of that.
On ruling it in or out, from a technical perspective, I believe it's allowed. I would say that the debate on this could be a part of the main debate, not a challenge over the validity of it.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
The honourable member for the NDP pointed to the Department of National Defence, but the governor general is involved with—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I know what Mr. Fragiskatos is going to say.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you jumped the queue there. I had other people in line. Having said that, you have challenged the chair, so it goes to a vote right away. There is no debate on this, so I'm going to call for a recorded vote.
We're going to have a recorded vote. The clerk is going to call your name, so you will vote to uphold the chair or....
Please explain it.
12:30 p.m.
The Clerk
The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
I will call the opposition in alphabetical order, and then the government members in alphabetical order.
If you vote yes, it means that you're upholding—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Right. If you vote yes, the debate continues. If you vote no, the debate ends.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Very good, so this is the end of the motion and the debate.
I will suspend the meeting so we can go in camera now to discuss the public accounts 2021—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we have two motions before us.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Yes. Pardon me. We were discussing motion number one, so now I'm going to turn to motion number two.
Mr. Therrien, could you read your second motion, the one pertaining to the Auditor General?
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Very well.
I can't propose an amendment or change to the first motion, but another party could propose a friendly amendment to alter the substance of the motion so that the committee could resume debate on whether it was in order or—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'm afraid the committee decided not to proceed with the first motion.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Very well.
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I will read the second motion. Here it is slowly:
That the Committee mandates the Chair to send a letter to the Auditor General of Canada strongly recommending to investigate the expenses and costs incurred by the Governor General of Canada, from public funds, in her capacity as Canada's representative at home and abroad since her appointment on July 6, 2021.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
I don't know whether I should repeat my comments because it's been a while since I spoke. My clothes are out of style now.
This is about the Governor General, the 29 guests on the trip, and the 17 crew members and security personnel. Just over $80,000 was spent on two lunches, three breakfasts and snacks.
That's only a portion of the expenses. It's surprising because the figure was originally $91,000 or $92,000 for a nine-day trip. People thought that was a lot for a nine-day trip. They assumed it included breakfasts, lunches and dinners, but didn't know whether it was in flight or not. That doesn't matter. People also thought it included alcohol.
Surprisingly, the Department of National Defence paid the bill. The NDP member said earlier—