Public Accounts Committee on June 21st, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

The point you made—I think it was your second-last point, Mr. Chair—on “other matters”...does not preclude other matters coming to the committee, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me have a look.

Standing Order 108(3)(g) states, “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”.

I wasn't sure what you said at the last point. The commentary was, “[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.”

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

All of that may hold. However, the sacrosanct principle of committees, as I understand after working on them for almost seven years, is that the mandate of the committee is the absolute key. Other matters may come to committee, but they must fit within the mandate of the committee. The mandate is extremely clear. We've been over it. I've mentioned it at length. You yourself acknowledged it is all about the work of the Auditor General of Canada and the public accounts of the country.

Again, to emphasize the point for Mr. Therrien and colleagues around the table, I'm not saying this issue should not be taken up. It can be taken up, of course, but it could be taken up, for example, by the OGGO committee, which covers expenditures. This committee is the audit committee of Parliament. It covers the reports and expenditures of the Auditor General. I think the member can bring it up, but not at this committee. I still make the point that I don't see how it fits within the mandate of this committee. Everything you said in terms of the Standing Orders holds, but the reflection is always that those principles are subservient to the idea that the mandate of the committee is the most key. If the committee is to look at an issue, it must fit within the mandate of the committee.

I asked about precedents before. I wouldn't want to see a precedent established where we have pursued a matter that fits outside the scope of the committee, and then we have issues coming up—let's say in the fall—that are outside the scope of the committee. We can't carry out the important work that clearly would fit in the mandate—the work of the Auditor General. That's my point. That's why I still maintain, with great respect, that it is out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Dong, you had your hand up briefly. Do you have a comment? If not, I'll go to Mrs. Shanahan.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'll resume my comments in debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just follow that line.

I was on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in 2015, and I was quite struck by how different this committee was from the others.

We work on the basis of consensus, our reports are unanimous, and our efforts are bolstered by the fact that the Auditor General works closely with us to examine spending—something that is especially important. On that point, I agree with my fellow member. That is the purpose of this committee. We must make sure that Canadians get value for their money.

Nevertheless, the Department of National Defence or, rather, the Canadian Armed Forces are responsible for the flight-related expenditures. The Governor General has nothing to do with it. It has to do with security. She is our country's representative, so it is entirely appropriate for her to have this level of security around her. As everyone knows, these expenses were lowered. Perhaps there is something to look into, but normally, it would be a matter for a different committee, as my fellow member suggested, perhaps even the Standing Committee on National Defence.

On this committee, when we examine the public accounts, we have the benefit of the work of the Auditor General and her office. Thanks to that reporting and analysis, we are able to work in a non-partisan way to ensure that Canadians get value for their money. For that reason, I agree with my fellow member that these two motions don't appear to fall within the scope of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

This could set a very worrisome precedent for the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I heard you loud and clear, Ms. Shanahan and Mr. Fragiskatos.

The other element I relied on for this decision is that while we're often seized with the reports from the Auditor General, one of our overriding functions, of course, is to look at the public accounts, which is a summary of all expenditures across the government. Now, perhaps we should spend more time on it than we have, both this year and previously, and perhaps we should do that in the future. The fact that this committee does address government expenditures to see how they fulfilled their mandate, to me is what makes this motion in order.

I'm going to leave it at that. I'm not going to hear any more points of order on this. Members have rights—and Mr. Fragiskatos alluded to that—which they can exercise.

I think, Mrs. Shanahan, we're also getting close, with your point of order, to debate again. There are many points that can be raised about this motion that would touch on parliamentary convention with respect to the Governor General, but those aren't points of order relevant to the ruling. That is where I landed and where I maintain my position.

With that, I'm going to turn it back to Monsieur Therrien to continue his introduction. I hope he will be somewhat brief so we can have a debate on this.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to keep it short. In any case, I had already explained why it was important to support the motion.

The valiant member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, the riding next to mine, said that the committee's purpose was to examine the management of public funds. That is precisely why I am bringing this situation to the committee's attention. I was almost done. I was saying that some questions were still unanswered. This won't take too long.

Why were there 29 people? Who were they all? All the information we got was—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe there are bells right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Do I have unanimous consent to continue for another 15 minutes?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Generally, we don't—

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

No, you do not.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's fine.

We'll suspend the meeting for the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I resume the meeting.

Monsieur Therrien, you had the floor.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We have duelling points of order here.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead.

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

Chair, I wonder if you could ask the clerk to clarify a few things. If we are going to have a debate or discussion on this, I think we have to be aware of certain things, as a committee. I maintain that the motion is out of order. However, there are other things, as well, that I think colleagues need to consider before we continue with the debate we're having.

First of all, if we were to carry out this work, if a report were to be worked on and completed by the committee on the matter, would it be rejected by the Speaker if it was deemed outside of the mandate? The Speaker could come to the conclusion, and I think would come to the conclusion, to be frank, that any report focusing on this would be outside of the mandate of the committee, and all the work that the committee had done would have been for naught.

The second thing I would ask you to confer with the clerk on is whether or not the Governor General could ever be summoned to appear at this committee. I don't believe that's the case, but I think we ought to hear from the clerk on that.

Finally, could you get the clerk's advice on whether or not this committee has in fact looked at matters pertaining to the Governor General in the past?

I raised that before, but we didn't get an answer on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will address two of the three, because I raised those exact same points.

The answer lies, in part, in what this committee decides. I have just ruled that the motion is in order. The committee, during the debate, is free to set the scope on any report.

I know there has been reference informally to the 2004 review of the then governor general's expenditures on another trip that drew headlines. I would note that that motion was substantially different from this one. That talked about reviewing the estimates. This motion talks about reviewing the expenditures, which I think is an important point of differentiation.

It is possible that the Speaker could rule it out of order, if this committee takes allowances beyond its mandate. I don't believe this motion does that.

Number two is a question that I also asked. Parliament does not have the power to order the Governor General to appear. However, the wording in this motion is “invite”, which is different.

Your third question was whether this committee had ever heard from the Governor General's office.

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

No. It was whether we had ever looked at matters relating to the Governor General's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Because my mind goes back only so far, I will ask the clerk if she has an answer to that. I don't know if it goes back to 1867, but we can ask.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

I have no recollection. I think the analysts might be better placed to answer that, but it would be in a report from the Auditor General if we had studied it.

I don't see any reference in any of the reports of the Auditor General's office.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead.

[Dillan Theckedath, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

We took a look back to 2015, and since I've been with the committee, it has never conducted a study on the Office of the Governor General or the expenditures of the governor general. There are two spending items, one for daily duties—which is overseen by the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General—and one for general expenditures, which are sometimes funded by the Department of National Defence for trips abroad, or by the Department of Canadian Heritage for a few facilities and ceremonies.

As far back as 2015, there have been none. We examined a few old reports, but we didn't find anything. In 2003‑04, however, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates did conduct a study on the role, mandate and estimates of the governor general. This committee has not done any, but others may have.