OGGO Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
| ¿ | 0915 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)) |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC) |
| À | 1000 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.) |
| À | 1005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
| À | 1010 |
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
Mr. Paul Forseth |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| À | 1015 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0915)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Order. This is meeting two of the government operations and estimates committee.
As the first order of business, we'd like to dispose of the motion by Mr. Martin, notice of which has been duly given.
Mr. Martin.
¿ 
(0955)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to read my motion into the record:
| That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates undertake a study and review of the Budget and Estimates of the Office of the Governor General and the spending of any other department or agency in support of the Office of the Governor General, for the purposes of determining if the spending patterns of the Office of the Governor General are in keeping with: a) the mandate of the Governor General, and b) the wishes and expectations of the Canadian public. |
Mr. Chair, I would hope that we would entertain this motion in that it's a pressing, top-of-mind issue for many Canadians. We believe the debate is relevant and needs to take place. One, in the modern context, many Canadians are unsure of what the role and mandate of the Governor General is in 2004 as opposed to 1804, and two, there is much debate as to how much we are willing to pay for this office and this mandate.
I make reference to the frequent debate they have in the United Kingdom, where the issue of the monarchy often comes up. They have a relatively balanced debate. They review what the expectations are, if they're getting value for their money, and how much they want to spend.
We see the spending of the Governor General's office spiralling out of control, with little or no input from the government or especially from Parliament. If the Governor General is to be taking on roles for foreign affairs, or to be getting involved with cultural ambassadorship that goes beyond the normal mandate of the Office of the Governor General, it's our job, and it should be our right, to review that and to assess if it's in keeping with the wishes of the Canadian people.
I would ask for the support of the members on that motion.
The Chair: Mr. Boudria.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): I don't know what my colleagues think, but perhaps this motion is a little broad. Maybe we could amend it by saying instead that this committee “undertake a study and review of the budget and estimates of the Office of the Governor General”, and leave it at that, removing all of the other words in that part. I think the mandate of the Governor General and stuff like that are constitutional issues.
So you could stop at that and then add, “as well as the supplementary estimates of the Public Service Commission, the Privacy Commissioner and....” What was the other one we'd said?
An hon. member:Communication Canada.
Hon. Don Boudria: Yes, Communication Canada.
So remove those last words and replace them with the ones I just said.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): I was certainly well disposed toward Pat Martin's motion, but I thought I would make a friendly amendment by adding a (c), asking about what the plan is of the government for the Governor General, and to actually have some evidence from the government.
The budget for the Governor General is proposed, through the challenge process, through the Prime Minister's Office, and that's how it comes. Now, we understand that there is a conversation between the government and the Governor General as to trips and a general view a year or two in advance. That was part of the past discussions, so I want to hear from the government on whether they have plans in terms of certain things the Governor General is going to do, and if there's a budget for that. I would like to have that budgetary planning process described.
When you have plans, it costs money. The government always proposes, but Parliament still must vote the appropriations. That's why I want to hear what the plan of the government is for the Governor General, related to spending.
À (1000)
The Chair: Mr. Martin has a motion, with proper notice, and we have--
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Can hear Mr. Boudria's amendment again?
The Chair: If everybody has Mr. Martin's motion in front of them, Mr. Boudria is going to propose an amendment, I gather.
Hon. Don Boudria: In the motion by Mr. Martin, after the words “Office of the Governor General” in the third line, the amendment would see the rest of the motion deleted, replaced with the words, “as well as the supplementary estimates of the Public Service Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and Communication Canada.”
So we would add those three other agencies, with which we agreed before, and remove those rather broad references, which really have nothing to do with estimates. They have to do largely with the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister, who is the principal adviser to the Governor General, and the way in which the two of them interact. It seems to be somewhat superfluous, particularly given the very little time we have to do the review of the estimates.
Again, my amendment would remove all of the words after “Governor General” in the third line, and would replace them with “as well as the supplementary estimates of the Public Service Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and Communication Canada.”
The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: I don't want to completely lose Mr. Martin's motion. When you're reviewing budget estimates, you're referring to the mandate at the same time. Where it says “undertake a study and a review of the budget estimates”, why don't we put in “and the Office of the Governor General”?
Then I would agree with Mr. Boudria. That would allow us to put the two together, which we would be doing anyway during the discussion.
The Chair: Mr. Perron.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): I completely disagree with Mr. Boudria's amendment, because it is comparing apples and oranges. We are getting off track. I think that the point of Mr. Martin's motion is to focus on the Governor General, and that is what we should do. I don't like disagreeing with my friend Don, but he is confusing the issues. So let's focus on the Governor General and propose another motion regarding Don's point, which I would support. I don't want to mix my apples and my bananas.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Perron and Mr. Martin. I don't support Mr. Boudria's proposed amendment, because this motion does not only refer to the supplementary estimates. I tend to agree with Mr. Lastewka, who said that we are not only dealing with the estimates, but also with the mandate of the Governor General. I think that is the underlying point of the motion.
I believe that Mr. Lastewka's amendment would allow us to examine all aspects of the issue in depth, instead of just skimming over the supplementary estimates. I think that is something else entirely. I therefore support Mr. Lastewka's amendment and cannot support the one proposed by Mr. Boudria.
À (1005)
The Chair: Mr. Gaudet, please.
Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I also have a problem with this matter. I think that Mr. Martin has proposed a very good motion, since we all want to know how much the Governor General costs Canada. It is all very well and good if she has a $20 million budget, but if she spends $20 million of the money of other departments, that means we do not really know how much she has spent by the end of the year. If we do not dig deep, everything will be swept under the carpet once again.
I would suggest undertaking only one study, but to look into the matter exhaustively, to do it well, and to start as soon as possible, which would enable us to present real facts to Canadians and Quebeckers.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Jordan.
Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, my concern is that the budget and estimates process gives us, as parliamentarians, leeway to ask whatever we want. We get a hook into absolutely everything. I don't know what having that in the motion does to improve what we're going to do.
I think Mr. Boudria's suggestion is good. We could have separate motions for them all, but I think we have agreed on a course of action here. Put it together and let's get them here Thursday.
I don't want to lose Mr. Forseth's point. Maybe we would address that by making sure that we have somebody who can speak to that linkage, because I think it is important, on Thursday or in a subsequent meeting.
I don't think we want to get in the habit of clouding these procedural motions with editorial comment, or at least prejudging in terms of where this is going to go. The budget and estimates process gives us the ability to go in on mandate. It gives us the ability to talk about virtually anything.
I don't think adding to that is helping in anything other than optics. I hope we can stay away a little bit from optics, and get down to doing the business we are supposed to be doing here.
The Chair: Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Paul Forseth: I see that Mr. Martin had to leave. Being politicians, we understand also that his motion is a tactical move. If we vote it down.... He wants us to vote it down so that he can run to the press and all the rest of it. That's part of the game here.
We have a subamendment that is formally on the table. We have to vote first on the subamendment, then we'll go to the main motion.
Are you disagreeing on procedure?
An hon. member: It's an amendment, not a subamendment.
Mr. Paul Forseth: There is an amendment to the motion. We'll vote on the amendment first, and then vote on what we find out in the end. We should get on and vote on that. Maybe there needs to be some side conversation and caucusing, and then we'll decide what to do.
The Chair: Mr. Perron.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Chairman, I would like a recorded vote on Mr. Boudria's amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Forseth. I do agree that extending what Mr. Boudria has said is a bit too much.
We could vote on an amendment, which I would do after Mr. Boudria's vote, that we remove (a) and (b) and end the paragraph with “are in keeping with the mandate of the Governor General”.
The Chair: So it would be your intent to make a subsequent motion after dealing with the amendment on the floor.
Hon. Don Boudria: I'm going to withdraw my proposed amendment and let Mr. Lastewka move his instead. That would be fine with me. I withdraw my amendment.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: I do believe that would cover what Mr. Forseth was also getting at. Mr. Forseth, would you agree?
Mr. Paul Forseth: I agree.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: I suggest that instead of having (a) and (b), it would read “the office of the Governor General are in keeping with the mandate of the Governor General”. So we're looking at the budget, the estimates, the patterns, and the mandate.
À (1010)
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Sounds good.
Mr. Paul Forseth: You need to read the whole thing as you are proposing it.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Leave the paragraph as is--
The Chair: Walter, if I may, I think everybody understands, but we've been writing down many different versions. If I understand you correctly, you want to add the words “and the mandate” after the words “budget and estimates”.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: No. Leave the paragraph as is but change the last sentence to “the office of the Governor General are in keeping with the mandate of the Governor General”.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Walt is saying, but we have to consider where the motion starts. We know where it's going to end. The part that says “I, Pat Martin, MP for Winnipeg Centre, move” will be eliminated. There will be no reference to Mr. Martin.
The Chair: It's his motion. He moved it. It's just being amended.
Mr. Greg Thompson: The motion he's moving starts with “that the House of Commons”.
The Chair: Yes. What we're voting on is what follows “that”.
Mr. Greg Thompson: I just wanted to be clear on that reference to Mr. Martin. So it begins with the words “that the House of Commons Standing Committee on”.
The Chair: Yes.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Yes, that's exactly it. I assume that the motion always starts with “that”.
The Chair: Mr. Jordan.
Hon. Joe Jordan: I'd like just one more kick at the can. Believe me, I can take no for an answer. I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be helpful, then, to add the three other areas, or do you want to deal with that in a separate motion? We would have to give notice of that motion. I just want to get the work plan laid out for us.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: No, leave it.
Hon. Joe Jordan: That's fine.
The Chair: We had better deal with one thing at a time.
I think we have had a wonderful discussion on this. There is an amendment from Mr. Lastewka, which he has read out.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Gaudet: Could you read it one last time, please, to make sure that we all understand?
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Point b) is deleted.
Mr. Roger Gaudet: Yes, but I just want to be sure.
[English]
Hon. Walt Lastewka: The last sentence would read “the office of the Governor General are in keeping with the mandate of the Governor General”.
The Chair: Is everyone clear on the amendment?
The motion we are voting on is that the committee will “undertake a study and review of”--and carrying right to the end--“in keeping with the mandate of the Governor General.” That is the intent.
First of all, on the amendment to clean up (a) and (b).... So the amended motion is that the committee will undertake this study, as was outlined by Mr. Lastewka as the intent.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Chairman, I think I asked for a recorded vote. I am sorry, but I think that is what I asked for a few moments ago.
À (1015)
[English]
The Chair: There is a request for a roll call on Mr. Lastewka's amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9 ; nays 0)
The Chair: The effect of the amendment is ostensibly to eliminate the thought of “the wishes and expectations” of Canadians, which probably is just a little bit too broad.
So we have the motion as amended.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you.
Members, we have a couple of routine motions.
Yes, Mr. Boudria.
Hon. Don Boudria: What about the other estimates? Do we want to seek unanimous consent to do it without notice, then?
The Chair: Pursuant to our discussion, I would entertain a motion that we conduct a review of the estimates with regard to vote 110b of Canadian Heritage, the Governor General, the Privacy Commissioner under Justice, and Communications Canada.
Can I have a mover for that? Mr. Boudria.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: That will be arranged for Thursday's meeting.
On the two other routine motions, you may recall that one is with regard to working meals. It is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
Do I have a mover for that? Moved by Mr. Jordan.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Finally, with regard to order-in-council appointments:
| That, pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), whenever an Order in Council appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the Committee, the Clerk shall obtain and circulate to any member of the Committee who makes a request a copy of the resume of each appointee. |
Moved by Mr. Lanctôt.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Gaudet: I would like you to drop the last five words. This means that you would officially give a copy to each committee member, even to those who have not requested one.
[English]
The Chair: As opposed to members who want it...? It's a way to save paper.
You want everybody to get a copy?
Mr. Roger Gaudet: Everybody.
The Chair: This is whether you wish to receive copies of a résumé of everybody who is going to be an appointee. You get notice of the appointment, but do you want the résumé as well, the total résumé?
Hon. Joe Jordan: These are people who are in line for the actual appointment. These are the applicants or the people being considered.
The Chair: They've been appointed, but as to whether you want the résumé....
Our practice in the last session was that you could have it if you requested it, if you wanted it, but it wouldn't automatically go to all members.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Gaudet: In that case, I will withdraw my proposal. Scratch that.
[English]
The Chair: Merci.
So on order-in-council appointments, do we have a mover for that routine motion? Mr. Jordan.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On other business, we are going to estimates on Thursday, the supplementary estimates. On Tuesday, March 9, which would be our next meeting, we will make every attempt to arrange matters related to the review of the Governor General's estimates and mandate.
Is there any further business?
Thank you, colleagues. The meeting is adjourned.