OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, October 20, 2003

¹

1535

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1550

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

¹

1555

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Ms. Judy Sgro

º

1600

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Paul Forseth

º

1605

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

º

1610

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit

º

1615

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

º

1620

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 064

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, October 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Meeting 64 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will now come to order.

    The first order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), is to deal with supplementary estimates A, 2003-04. We have votes under a number of departments and areas.

    I understand that members may have some questions, so we'll take it slowly. We're dealing first with Canadian Heritage.

CANADIAN HERITAGE

Public Service Commission

ç	Vote 110a--Public Service Commission--Program expenditures..........$14,534,402

ç	(Vote 110a agreed to on division)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): We'll now move to the Governor General.

    Shall vote 1a under the Governor General carry?

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could speak to that motion, for a moment at least, by way of a question and comment for my other colleagues on the committee.

    I feel strongly that we would be sending the wrong message altogether if we simply rapidly voted in favour of carrying vote 1a, given the information that's been circulated today. We now have a better picture of the global spending of the Office of the Governor General, and I would argue that it would trivialize all the important work we have done to date in terms of examining the spending of the Office of the Governor General if we simply rubber-stamped the vote as we have it.

    Now, I understand that the dollar figure in the supplementary estimates is in fact $1. I know that's done in a symbolic way from time to time in the supplementary estimates. A figure of $1 is put there as a matter of course. It's sort of recognizing, I suppose, that there's some hesitance or reluctance on the part of the committee to look at this time at any larger supplementary expenditures. But in this case, in the five minutes I've had to look at the new information before us, I see that in the last full fiscal year under the previous Governor General, Roméo LeBlanc, the total global overall spending, less military spending, was $13 million. In the last fiscal year it was $35.3 million. So the growth in spending has been exponential. It hasn't just doubled; it in fact has almost tripled.

    I won't go on for long, Mr. Chairman, but as we look in more detail at the operating breakdown for the official residence and at the spending involvement or subsidization by the National Capital Commission, we see that while the operating budget has remained relatively fixed from 1999 to today, with modest increases in that operating budget, the capital expenditures line from 1999 to 2003 went up from $2.7 million a year to $7 million in expenditures. This has, again, fully tripled.

    You'll notice, by comparison...and it's very helpful that the researcher put the cost of operating 24 Sussex Drive, the Prime Minister's residence, right next to this. Their capital outlay was $212,000 compared with $7 million. In fact, every year, overwhelmingly....

    We can accept some of this. Rideau Hall is an acreage, an estate, with outbuildings, etc., but this is overwhelming information, and I think we would be doing a disservice to the important work we've done to date by treating this information lightly. We would be trivializing the importance of the work we've done to date. Frankly, we wouldn't be living up to our responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer if we let this go without comment and without notice.

    I would argue that simply by approving vote 1a at this time, all the world would know--or this would be the effect--that we approve in some way of this pattern of spending. Even if around this table we voice our concerns, the public record will show that we in fact have endorsed the Governor General's current spending and the supplementary expenditures.

    So I'm going to argue...for a couple of reasons. One, we don't even have the military spending, which may be fairly substantial. It's still pending. I guess the researchers were still waiting for it at the time this report was put together.

    Two, this information does not include the Citadelle. I've been to the Citadelle in Quebec City. It's the regimental home of the Van Doos. It's a magnificent building. It rivals Rideau Hall in terms of grandeur, and I have every reason to believe that a lot of the spending that goes on at the Citadelle is comparable or equal to, if not in excess of, what we see at Rideau Hall.

    So in the absence of the dollar figure from the military spending, in the absence of the dollar figure associated with the Citadelle, we still don't know the full scope, the depth and the breadth, of the spending by our Governor General.

¹  (1540)  

    I think we undertook an important body of work with this study. We tried to emphasize the point that our analysis of the spending and estimates of the Governor General and Rideau Hall was not simply because of the sensationalism associated with this circumpolar trip. We tried to make it clear to people that we were not just digging up dirt because the media had a notion about overspending on this trip. We said we were going to do a far more detailed and responsible analysis of the true cost to the public of having our Governor General at the current level of activity.

    I should close by saying that when Ms. Uteck and the financial officer from Rideau Hall were here as witnesses, many of us came away very disappointed that what we really got from them was a civics lecture. In an almost condescending way, they outlined to us the important work of the Governor General. They explained to us that the Governor General gives out citations and medals, the Governor General travels on our behalf, the Governor General does this, the Governor General does that. That was all very well and good, but a lot of us questioned whether it was good value for our money to have them fly halfway across the world for a one-hour meeting to give us a civics lesson. A lot of us felt we weren't getting into the bread and butter issues of the cost of the Governor General to the Canadian taxpayer.

    Now we have three-quarters of that, and even though we got pulled into the expense of the circumpolar party issue, this is the real meat and potatoes; this is the real substance right here. We've seen the Governor General's budget grow exponentially. It hasn't just increased or doubled; it has blossomed. It's like empire building or something if over three short years you can grow your budget by 300%.

    I don't know if it's in order to move any kind of motion now until we vote this one down. I would argue that we should freeze the budget as is and deny the request for a $1 increase in supplementary estimate spending.

¹  (1545)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Thank you, Mr. Martin.

    We can carry the vote as is or we can vote to reduce it and carry it as reduced, but voting against it will achieve the same effect of eliminating the dollar.

    Mr. Forseth, please.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I want to thank Philippe Le Goff from the parliamentary research branch, related and attached to this committee, for providing us with the information, rather than the Governor General's office.

    When they came here, I asked them how much it cost to have the Governor General in Canada, and they had absolutely no clue. My position has been that everything should be transparent, and at least in an annual report there should be some effort to collect what other spending has been done in the name of the Governor General. The research the Library of Parliament has been able to come up with so far has not been able to tease out what the Defence spending has been. I'm sure it is considerable, but it's probably legitimate.

    The general sense is that when tax dollars are spent, the Canadian taxpayer ought to be able to figure out where they're being spent and how, and they will make the judgment concerning value. Until there's a total picture of what the Governor General costs the taxpayer, it's very hard for us to achieve that higher standard of transparency.

    The government proposes the spending of the Governor General, signed off by the Prime Minister, but Parliament votes on the appropriation, and it should be as transparent as possible. So I also have similar concerns about laying all the facts on the table. Today, in relation to this vote, we lay this document on the table--it's now a public document--related to the spending descriptions, as best as we can find them, of the Governor General.

    I hope that in the future, when the officials come on a regular annual basis to give answers to questions concerning their finances, they will have a complete picture of what the costs are, and the taxpayer will be advised appropriately.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Thank you.

    Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'll try not to repeat. I've three points to make.

    First of all, the increase in the Governor General's reported budget since this government took office is more than 100%. That has to be of concern, but even more shocking is that spending on the Governor General's office, outside of that reported--in other words, spent through other departments and so on--has increased from $307,000 to over $15 million in the past ten years. That has to be of even greater concern.

    The issue of transparency is extremely important. I would suggest that this committee decide, today, to ask for an attachment at the time of the main estimates that would include the spending in other departments and so on outside of the Governor General's own number in the main estimates and in the supplementary estimates so that we can deal with them at that time.

    Today, vote 1a under the Governor General, for $1, is to accommodate the pension of Ray Hnatyshyn, a former Governor General. I don't think we want to interfere with that. The time to deal with this, the appropriate time to deal with this, is when the main estimates come before this committee again. I think at that time we should take a very serious look at cutting back on the Governor General's spending. It has gotten out of control.

    So I would move that this committee ask specifically for an attachment that would give the number of dollars spent in other departments on the Governor General's office at the time of the main estimates next year and at the time of the supplementary estimates next time.

¹  (1550)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Thank you.

    Since we do already have a motion by Mr. Martin on the floor, we can't entertain another one. However, I think the clerk has duly noted it, and it is on the official record. I think the committee is aware of the other opportunities we have when we do the estimates at the next round.

    Mr. Lanctôt, please--

    Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I didn't understand that I had a motion on the floor. I thought the motion on the floor was, “Shall the vote carry?” Is that not the motion that's on the floor?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I'm sorry, but from your last couple of sentences, I had thought you wanted us to use the $1 reduction as an indication of our dissatisfaction.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Was my motion in order?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Yes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: So that's on the floor. Okay. I misunderstood you.

    What happens to “Shall the vote carry?”, the main motion?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Well, I posed the question, but on debate you posed that it be amended to be reduced by $1. So effectively, the motion now is on whether the vote shall carry as amended or as reduced.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I see. Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Would it be in order, after the vote on the current amendment that's before the committee, for me to bring this forth as another amendment, so that it's noted for next time that we receive an attachment with all of the money spent on the Governor General's office?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): We'll certainly deal with that after the discharge of the current one.

    Mr. Lanctôt, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): I shall continue in the same vein as my colleagues. The committee does not have delusion of grandeur, but it has raised important issues, including one of my own questions regarding the $ 1 million renovation or repair costs for the secretary's residence. She told me that she was the one who occupies that residence, but that she was not aware of the figures and that the NCC should be able to reply to my question. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to ask these people questions before we vote them additional funds. When we ask questions, we are told that the people concerned cannot reply and that we have to ask the NCC for an answer to this particular question. That is one thing.

    I believe that our committee work must be taken seriously and I know that this committee always does, but we have to continue. It is not because we are dealing with the Governor General that we must flout the good work we are attempting to do. We have to look into this matter seriously. I did not get an answer to my questions even though they were rather important.

    When the executive assistant or secretary of the Governor General occupies one of those residences, I want to know whether or not the construction or renovation work was really necessary or if it was simply esthetic in nature. I need to know that especially since I have no means of comparison. I, too, want to congratulate Mr.  Le Goff. We see here: not available for previous years. It is extremely important to know what these amounts are.

    Is it only since Ms. Clarkson's appointment that $ 5 million,$ 6 million or $ 8 million renovations have been made to Rideau Hall and elsewhere? I believe that these questions should not simply be swept aside, but that we should find out what we are dealing with. Have there always been such expenditures?

    When I look back, I find it strange that capital costs for Rideau Hall would be 7 million dollars, 4 million dollars, 2 million dollars or rather nearly 3 million dollars, while we have more normal expenditures for other buildings, such as $ 100 000 for maintenance.

    Why have the figures for Rideau Hall been so high since 1999? I am sorry, but I think that all those millions add up to a lot of renovations to these buildings. I would like to know if these were real repairs or simply esthetic renovations. Then, the secretary comes and tells us that there have been $ 1 million worth of renovations at her residence. I do not know what these are, but I would like to find out what type of renovations were made there.

    I also want to add that the director general was here. We asked a question about the budgets stating that in our opinion they were astronomical going from $ 11 million to $18 million. Moreover, it is no longer $11 million or $18 million, but rather $35 million. And when we look at the previous figures, we find that $11 million was pretty much the total amount. The director general said that she didn't know anything about it. However, she should have provided us these figures and given us a general idea. The amount has doubled and we were talking to the director general. The fact that the amounts are paid by a department does not mean that the director general should not be aware of them.

    Let us act rigorously. Just because Ms. Clarkson has the title of Governor General, let us stop saying that everything is fine and dandy. Perhaps it is, but I want some answers and I want to be able to ask my questions to find out what these items are. Later on, the public accounts committee will determine how she is spending. As for me, I am sorry, but I do not even know how I could vote on that today since I do not have the answers I need. I think that we do our work seriously. We are entitled to do that. I agree with Pat that we are not simply asking that the estimates be reduced. Let us cancel the $ 1 vote and call on witnesses to give us some explanations. That is all we want.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Merci.

    Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'm sorry I got here late. I have some questions.

    What are the implications of our not passing the motion that's on the table here? I'm not referring to Mr. Martin's; I'm referring to the 1a that's here, the normal stuff you just pass. If we don't pass this motion for $1 today, what are the implications?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Well, if I may, if the committee were not to address the supplementary estimates and report them by the deadline, which I believe is three days before the seventh opposition day, which I think is next Monday or Tuesday, they would be deemed to be reported without amendment. If we don't deal with them on time they will be accepted as they were presented in the supplementary estimates. It's something we have to deal with.

    I understand the point, if I may simply respond to Mr. Lanctôt. I think he shares the view of Mr. Benoit and probably other members of the committee that there is substantially more to look at and more work for us to do. We are not restricted, however, by the estimates process. We have a relationship and a duty to keep abreast of and to work with every department and agency that comes under our mandate, and we would not have to wait very long.

    This is something the committee could in fact entertain as an order of business at the earliest possible time once that information is available to us and the committee is ready to address it. I think that may be something members would like to suggest to the chair or to the steering committee with regard to future business. I think it's quite appropriate.

    Let's go back to Mrs. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Going back to that issue, I agree with Mr. Benoit, we don't want to do anything that will penalize Mr. Hnatyshyn, and that in effect is what the dollar account was.

    This particular report...and congratulations, Mr. Le Goff, you've done a lot of work in the week that we've been in our ridings. I guess the question is...this just begs the issue of more questions. There's the fact that a week or so ago, when the members of the office appeared before us, it was not specific to any of these issues. We needed knowledge on them and now we have them.

    The question to you, Mr. Szabo, is whether it wouldn't be possible for us to approve the dollar, because of the implications of what it's for, but ask the department, the Governor General's office, to come before us and discuss this particular piece of information.

    Again, I'm checking with you as to what the process is. We could deal with the estimates and then have the office come before us to answer some of the questions members have. Is that possible?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): The question is whether or not the elimination of the dollar would affect the pension, and I'm pretty sure the dollar is actually a reflection of a transfer, an in-and-out transfer, and it's a residual amount. So I doubt very much this would affect anybody's pension.

    I think the point raised by Mr. Martin and others has been whether this would be an indication in our report of our concerns, and that would highlight that fact. It was basically a gesture to highlight a concern.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Can we go further then, Mr. Chairman, in the sense of having the Rideau Hall group come before the committee at the first possible opportunity?

º  (1600)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Absolutely. I would think it would be a matter for future business that the committee would make recommendation on. I think we would want to plan that properly so that members have all the information they feel is necessary to do a proper review and we would have before us the people who could answer the questions related to that information.

    We'll go to Madam Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I think it's important to remind the committee that the reason the Governor General's office submitted the supplementary estimates for $1 was so they could come before the committee during supplementary estimates. It really was in the spirit of cooperation and transparency. They didn't have to put in the supplementary estimates for $1 and they didn't have to appear at this time. They chose to put in the supplementary estimates so there would be an opportunity for them to come before the committee.

    I think in what we're trying to do with this committee, which is to encourage transparency, accountability, and all of that, we should reward good behaviour: they put in the supplementary estimates so they would be called here during supplementary estimates.

    Whatever we want to do at main estimates or whatever we want to do in terms of collecting more information, I still think it is important for this committee to acknowledge that they did this in order to be able to come before the committee at a time when the office was deemed to be pretty controversial.

    I'm a big believer in rewarding good behaviour, and it was important that they change that estimate to $1. I don't think it makes a difference whether we take the dollar away or not. However, I for one think that by passing the dollar, we would acknowledge their willingness to come before us.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Thank you.

    Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

    Mr. Chair, is it in order for me to make a motion now?

    I would like to make the motion that I presented earlier, calling for an attachment to be made to the main estimates and to the next supplementary estimates laying out the spending on the Governor General's office that occurs in votes other than those for the Governor General.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to deal with that motion, but after we discharge the current item with regard to the supplementary estimate.

    Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think we ought to clarify what Dr. Bennett just said. I think it's quite irrelevant; this dollar vote is in fact a bookkeeping necessity and has nothing to do with whether or not they wanted to come to see our committee.

    Am I wrong? I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it's my view that the dollar is an accounting necessity.

    Perhaps the researcher could set me straight, if I'm wrong.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): If I may, I will read from the financial procedures on dollar items:

Supplementary Estimates often include what are known as “one dollar items”, which seek an alteration in the existing allocation of funds as authorized in the Main Estimates. The purpose of a dollar item is not to seek new or additional money, but rather to spend money already authorized for a different purpose.

    It is not just a stencil plate to increase the budgetary funds of the Governor General's department.

    There's kind of an interesting difference of opinion on what the $1 is, but I think members should be assured that this does not have anything to do with any increase or decrease. All the moneys in the Governor General's authorized budget were approved in the main estimates, which were approved by Parliament some time ago.

    Mr. Forseth, and then Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: We just have to recall the evidence that's before this committee. The Governor General's officials came, and their evidence was that they were seeking an additional six-month authority to spend in this area. That was their evidence; that's what they were asking. I recall the evidence very specifically, and I recall watching the video tape again about that.

    They were asking for some specific authority, and if the dollar is gone, it creates administrative difficulty. It's not just a trivial matter.

    Yes, it's a proxy, and it's not a matter related to, as Madame Bennett had to say.... I have to agree with my colleague Mr. Epp that it's a specious argument.

    We as a committee are going to regularly do our duty. With the entities that are attached to this committee, we're going to try to review the estimates on a regular basis, and the Governor General's officials hopefully will be coming here on a regular basis. That dollar was not created so they could come for a PR purpose.

º  (1605)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: If, as you say, the $1 supplementary estimate is to serve notice or to get the authorization to reallocate or pre-approve spending from one unit to another, we would need to know what that reallocation is prior to saying it's all right.

    I, for one, wouldn't approve of taking $1 million out of maintenance and putting it towards travel, or whatever. We don't know enough about it to vote on it properly.

    Secondly, it's all the more reason that I would suggest we should vote down this $1, for the purpose that we don't have the information and also as the symbolic gesture that we are not satisfied with this blossoming of spending, this explosion of spending.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Okay. I would refer members to the supplementary estimates, page 51, on the Governor General. Vote 1 is specifically identified as follows:

To extend payments to complete the legacy activities of the office of the former Governor General for the Hnatyshyn Foundation for the Arts.

    This is what it says. This is the representation, and I think we have to accept that as what the item is for.

    That said, we've had an interesting discussion, and I think I heard some consensus with regard to the need for us to do much more work in this regard. We have the opportunity, and I think Mr. Benoit is going to help us out with a formal reminder that we should make some plans to do this appropriately.

    While I understand that sometimes it's interesting to put a flag out there simply to give notice or as a proxy for the concern of the committee with regard to a broader range of issues, and certainly other information that is not even before the committee, the fact remains that the supplementary estimates are for $1. They relate to a specific item. It's enabling; it's more an enabling indicator. I think it would probably be problematic and would create, for the wrong reason, some difficulty in terms of the administration.

    I would suggest, colleagues, that the commentary has been duly noted by us and that we have a responsibility to follow through to ensure that the questions that have been raised this time around would not arise in the future because we had an opportunity to be apprised of all the information and to have before us, to the fullest extent possible, those who can make the explanations and answer our questions.

    I would suggest that the $1, the token gesture, might be somewhat problematic. It could be. I don't think it's absolutely necessary. I would suggest to members that the committee carry the vote as presented, so that we don't create some unintended difficulty.

    I will then, if I may ask again--

    Ms. Judy Sgro: I'd like to get a clarification, please. I respect your comments and I understand where we're going, but I don't want to take away from the concerns. At what point under future business can we move forward on this issue of doing some further work on this?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Immediately following this vote.

    With the permission of the committee, I will ask the question. Shall vote 1a under Governor General carry?

    Mr. Pat Martin: I have a point of order. I either have a motion on the floor or I don't. You can't just talk yourself out of my motion. You allowed that I had a legitimate motion on the floor . We didn't vote on that motion. You said we're not going to approve that, so let's vote on the main motion instead. There has to be some process, especially when there's--

º  (1610)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I said I would pose the original question again with the consent of the committee.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Permission denied. I want my motion voted on.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): If permission is denied, I would then call the question on your motion, which is to reduce the Governor General's supplementary estimates by $1.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I would like a recorded vote.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Ms. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: For clarification again, it's not that we don't support the estimates, it's that we reduce them by that $1. So it would still go forward, but minus the $1. I don't think we can do that.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): We will take a recorded vote on the motion to reduce the supplementary estimates by $1. Following that vote, we will go back to the main motion, which is either to carry it or to carry it as reduced. So there will be two votes.

    I call the question on Mr. Martin's motion, which is that vote 1a under Governor General be reduced by $1.

    (Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 2)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I think it's self-evident, but we might as well call the question. Shall vote 1a under Governor General carry?

GOVERNOR GENERAL

ç	Vote 1a--Governor General--Program expenditures...............$1

(Vote 1a agreed to on division)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I would now like to entertain the motion by Mr. Benoit so that we can tidy off this one area.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll make the motion first. I move that this committee receive an attachment to the next main estimates and the next supplementary estimates that states the amount spent on the Office of the Governor General that is not stated in the Governor General's envelope.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Is there any debate?

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, maybe this is more a point of order. Where on the permanent record shall there be a listing of those who voted against the main motion, which was, shall vote 1a under Governor General carry?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): It was not a recorded vote, but it was agreed to carry it on division.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I missed my opportunity. I would have called for a recorded vote.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Benoit, did you have anything further to say on your motion?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I think this allows us to deal with the issue of concern, which is the rapid increase in spending under the Governor General's envelope in the estimates, and also, and more importantly, to deal with the spending on the Governor General's office, which has really been hidden from the public until now. It may also set a precedent that this committee could expand in the future to make the estimates far more useful in holding government accountable. That is a change that would allow us to really see the spending on various issues. I think this motion will allow us to deal with this at the appropriate time, which is when the next main estimates come before the committee.

º  (1615)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Now, if I may, just for clarification, the recommendation is that when we receive the main estimates, the committee also be in receipt of any and all other documents related to the Governor General's office, and that the committee be provided with those, as opposed to that document itself.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Great. That would be fine.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Bertrand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I would like to clarify one thing, Mr. Chair. If I understood correctly, Mr. Benoit's proposal only concerns future costs, next year costs, we should perhaps specify that these documents will now be required every year.

[English]

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I would accept that as a friendly amendment; that was actually my intent, but it wasn't clear. I appreciate your amendment.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Maybe we could say “to the next and subsequent estimates and main estimates”.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Right. As carefully prepared as that motion was, I left that out.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I think members understand the intent of the motion, basically calling for the information that many members had indicated in our prior discussions should have been available for the committee to review, and to ask questions with regard to the direct and, I guess, indirect expenditure areas related to the Governor General's office. So that would be part of our work, and this would be a reminder to us to do that.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I want to be sure I understand that what we're really asking for now is that we be given the whole costing of the institution, rather than just the bare minimum, main estimates. If that's what my colleague is recommending, I very much agree that the onus shouldn't be on us to ask all the right questions; the onus should be on them to volunteer that information in a fulsome manner at the front end, so that we don't have to play cat and mouse to find out every little bit of spending. If that's the case, I would strongly recommend that we all support the amendment.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We obviously have to recommend that this motion be agreed to. On the other hand, I have one concern, this should not be a witch hunt. I agree with the motion, but it deals only with future expenditures and I would like to be able to check on the amounts spend over the last three or four years for the institution of the Governor General. If the motion as read was to be agreed to and the supplementary estimates passed, we could check what will happen in the future. I believe that we should also do a review of past expenditures, why this major increase from $11 million to $35 million? I would add one word in French, the word “notamment“ or “including“ in English, this would allow us to ask questions about past expenditures. Otherwise, we shall have to deal only with the future. I would like us to add this word to allow us to check also`on what was spent in the past. I do not know what we can add to the motion, but I would like to make a small amendment so that we can look at past expenditures.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I understand your point, Mr. Lanctôt.

    The documents we have received are actually a trend line and include historic numbers. I don't think the motion, as it stands now, would restrict us in any way from looking at the historical progression of the numbers. But I would also point out that notwithstanding this motion, the committee can, if it wishes, decide to do an order of the day for it to continue the discussions we're having right now, once the rest of the information is available, and to further follow up, and in fact to even do a separate report to the House, if that's the wish of the committee.

    So I think members may want to consider that, and maybe we should have an item for future business discussion at our next meeting to determine whether or not there is anything we want to indicate at this point.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could we add that immediately to the next orders of the day? Could we ask the clerk to include this item immediately to the order of the day, for our future business?

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): D'accord.

    I think we understand Mr. Benoit's motion. I don't know whether we need to have further discussion; it sounds like we have an understanding.

    I would then call the question on Mr. Benoit's motion. I don't think I have to read it again to you, as I think you understand its gist.

    (Motion agreed to)

º  (1620)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Colleagues, we're moving back to the supplementary estimates questions and the Privy Council area.

    Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like us to vote separately on all these votes and not lump them all together.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I will call them in order. I think they're on your order paper in front of you, on the agenda, and we will deal with them in that order.

    The first is under Privy Council.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Department

ç	Vote 1a--Privy Council--Program expenditures and contributions.......$26,285,562

ç	Vote 5a--Canadian Centre for Management Development--Program expenditures........$2,488,000

ç	Vote 10a--Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat--Program expenditures.......$2,197,000

ç	Vote 35a--Public Service Staff Relations Board--Program expenditures........$1,841,000

    (Votes 1a, 5a, 10a and 35a inclusive agreed to on division)

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I make the same request.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): There will be three votes for Public Works and Government Services.

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Department

ç	Vote 1a--Government Services--Operating expenditures..........$115,754,923

ç	Vote 15a--Communication Canada--Operating expenditures...........$28,246,741

ç	Vote 20a--Communication Canada--The grants listed in the Estimates..............$1

    (Votes 1a, 15a and 20a inclusive agreed to on division)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Next is Treasury Board, as per the agenda.

TREASURY BOARD

Secretariat

ç	Vote 1a--Treasury Board Secretariat--Operating expenditures........$41,692,074

ç	Vote 10a--Government-Wide Initiatives.........$31,746,000

ç	Vote 15a--Compensation Adjustments.........$193,520,000

    (Votes 1a, 10a, and 15a inclusive agreed to on division)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Shall I report Supplementary Estimates (A) to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I believe those are our agenda items on supplementary estimates. We will go in camera for agenda item 2, related to the whistle-blowing issue.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]