Public Accounts Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll admit not being an expert on this, but I have, for example, in my northern Ontario riding hundreds, maybe thousands, of residential school payment recipients. There have been some sad cases reported where somebody was robbed or taken advantage of because somebody else knew they were getting something. I think just on the basis of security alone, that would be sufficient for me, as a single member, to agree that names and amounts not be included. They're available to us on a confidential basis, when the offer is made. That would certainly be my view. I would agree with not including names and individual amounts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll go to Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I wasn't going to get involved with this, but you've stirred something up in my mind. The Liberal person I am referring to is someone the Liberals know very well. He's a lawyer from Regina by the name of Tony Merchant. He would be under the claims related to the Indian residential school system. That's a huge, significant payment. Does that mean that Mr. Merchant and his law firm are not going to be listed with the amount of payment they've received?

[A voice]

That's what he said.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm definitely going to have my eye out for that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

My sense is that it is not an ex gratia payment. It is an actual fee payment, and that's another thing.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's debatable.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Well, that's not at issue here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

On the topic, Mr. Chairman, I would never suggest--and if I've been misunderstood I want to correct it--that we ask that all these names be made public and printed. No. That's not the question. However, for the extraordinary assistance plan for Health Canada, there's a number given: three. There are no numbers given anywhere else.

I understand that for the heating fuels it's hundreds of thousands, but by now it could be quite a bit less. For Agent Orange, which is a fairly contentious issue, I'm not looking for the names. But it would be useful to know how many.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have an amendment, Mr. Chair.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I go back to my first point. The first point, and my concern, is that this balance of authority between the executive and the legislative is, in my mind, paramount. I would not want, down the road, to have contributed to the erosion of our ability to oversee by not exercising, once in a while, that authority. So if it requires having someone come to talk to us, once, in camera, about this, I think it would be worthwhile. That is the spirit in which I'm questioning here. It's nothing more than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I simply wanted to say, and Mr. Williams' amendment may just reflect that as well, that I agree entirely in principle with Mr. Bélanger. Occasionally, if not exercised, you can lose that. And our schedule, of course, up until the end, is full. I have no problem if you want to deal with this one in September and have them come then, or if it's always June, then let's be proactive and schedule it for next year so that we actually exercise our full capability. Let's bring somebody before the committee in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll have Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

We have had people before the committee to explain this in the past, Mr. Chair.

My amendment is to continue on, after “the Public Accounts of Canada”, but that it report the number of payments and the total paid under each category. I thought, Mr. Chairman, that we always had that in here.

With regard to Mr. Bélanger's point about the balance between the executive and the legislative branch, they have tried to slip this through every year. They start off by saying to just give them a blanket “forever” authorization, to which we have responded that there is no possible way that is ever going to happen; we'll give it to you on a year-by-year basis. As you see, this is getting watered down to less and less, and therefore we have to be vigilant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You agree with that amendment, I assume, Mr. Sweet.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You're making a subamendment?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It may be friendly. It's about the range. I mean the highest and lowest. Give the range without identifying whom.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You had better set out the range then.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Have the range, the highest and the lowest. Just have the range.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay, that's fine, that it report the number of payments and the total amount paid under each category within the range of the highest and lowest payment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you agree with that, Mr. Sweet?