Public Accounts Committee on June 22nd, 2011

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

So let's have a limit as to how long this is to go on for.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Well, let's take a couple of questions and see where we are here.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay. So two questions--

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

A lot of us who have been around a while believe this shouldn't be a big deal. Members are entitled to ask questions. I mean, fair is fair.

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would just like to say that for us, in any case, the intention is not to extend all of this. We also want to move on to the main subject, but we have to take into account the fact that this is the first committee experience for some people at the table. It would be good for those people to know what the purpose or the consequences of this document would be. We understand that it is a routine document; the chair explained that clearly. However, if there are any basic questions aimed at understanding the role of the comptroller general and the repercussions of the document, I believe that explanations could be provided very quickly. It is primarily an issue of respect for the new members of the committee. As we hold more meetings, it will become easier. I do not think that anyone wants to draw this out any longer than is necessary.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Yes, Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I would like clarification, then, that the question will be directed to this issue, to this issue of the Comptroller General, not to the role of the Comptroller General and to where we're going to go on this.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Oh, of course.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

We'd be here forever on that.

So if you want to keep it to this issue, let's get at it.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay. I will take that as agreement and plow forward.

I would ask our guests to introduce themselves, and then I will turn the floor over to Mr. Byrne, for up to five minutes, for questions.

[Suzie Gignac, Executive Director, Government Accounting Policy and Reporting, Financial Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I am Suzie Gignac. I'm in government accounting policy and reporting at the Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board.

[Annie Boyer, Senior Analyst, Government Accounting and Reporting, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Good afternoon. My name is Annie Boyer.

I am senior analyst at the Office of the Comptroller General, government accounting policy and reporting.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Good. Welcome. Thank you for attending.

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our witnesses, or those appearing before us, you're very, very welcome here. There's certainly no hostility. We just want to ask some simple questions and get to some simple truths.

In relation to this, from my point of view--and I'm sure this is on behalf of all committee members--it seems very, very clear and understandable why the Comptroller General, those who prepare the public accounts and those who protect the public interest, would want to protect the names of the recipients of merchant navy veterans' benefits, Agent Orange benefits, Indian residential school system benefits, and even for damages and losses, for those who are in receipt of ex gratia payments for damages and losses received during service in Afghanistan.

Parliament specifically debated, authorized, and approved the programs and, in essence, where that money would flow from. There has been a disclosure to Parliament and an approval by Parliament for the nature of and the discretion within those particular programs. I don't think there's anything that anyone would argue with on that point of view.

But with all respect to my colleagues, my question is that there seems to be somewhat of a creep in terms of the mandated authority that the Comptroller General is asking for here, which I'd just like to get to the bottom of. I've had some research done and have conducted my own research. This has come up on a few occasions in the past at the public accounts committee, where the overall authority to waive the publication of names has come up and questions were answered.

What seems a little different here is that we're going beyond established programs--compensation or ex gratia payments and other payments made arising from established programs that were actually pre-debated and pre-authorized by Parliament--to something further.

When the Comptroller General wrote to us, he asked for authority not to disclose payments to inmates. The Correctional Service of Canada obviously makes payments to inmates. The Comptroller General does not actually declare or indicate to this committee to which particular program he is referring. What I'm concerned about is that there are payments being made to inmates without any pre-authorization by Parliament or pre-consideration.

I recognize that most ex gratia payments are not pre-authorized by Parliament. That's their very nature. But you're asking for authority not to publish payments to criminals. I don't know where that comes from or what the program is from, but we also go a step further here. This is the creep I'm talking about, the authority creep, as it were. You're also asking for things that were never ever discussed by Parliament.

Here's what you're asking for, and I quote: “There are also a variety”--a variety--“of miscellaneous instances where names are being withheld due to confidentiality agreements relating to the payments of Claims against the Crown”--claims that may not have been adjudicated by any court system and are just a voluntary payment--“[other] Ex Gratia payments, and Court Awards”.

Now, I can understand court awards. If the court actually authorized that there be non-disclosure of an award, then I think it behooves Parliament to also acquiesce to that. But if a court award is actually published, it's already public information. I don't understand why that would be excluded from the public accounts.

As the final thing, what the Comptroller General has asked for is...he would propose to the committee to provide to the committee, in camera and on an as required basis, the names of those in receipt of payments--not on an as requested basis, but on an as required basis. There's a strong distinction in that language. Who determines what is required and who requires it? And why not as requested?

Finally, Mr. Chair, how can we request something if we don't know of its existence?

I appreciate the fact that there has been a suggestion of an in camera exercise to draw out this information, but if we don't actually know of its existence, it's difficult for us. As committee members and parliamentarians, as the safeguards of the public purse, it's difficult for us to actually request something if we don't even know of its existence.

There are a number of issues there. On the issues of the Indian residential school system, Agent Orange, merchant navy benefits, and even damages and losses in Afghanistan, while I would ask the Comptroller General to continue to include information, I would ask personally to--

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm sorry, that's five minutes.

I should have given our guests the opportunity at the beginning to give us a two- or three-minute explanation of exactly what it is that's in front of us. So I'm going to ask you to please answer the questions that Mr. Byrne has posed but also to preface that by giving us a general presentation of a couple of minutes regarding what it is that's before us. That would be helpful.

That was my mistake. I was remiss, and I apologize to colleagues.

[Suzie Gignac]

Thank you, Chair.

Just as a quick preamble, included in public accounts disclosures, we disclose ex gratia payments of over $100 and of under $100 in aggregate. We also disclose payments of claims against the crown of over $1,000, and in aggregate of below $1,000. The third item is court awards, and all of those are actually disclosed.

We come before committee each year to identify certain items for which departments have requested that names not be withheld, and we ask you to endorse that, because we don't believe that management should be unilaterally making that decision. So we ask for your endorsement of those.

It's important to note that only the name is withheld; it's not the payment, the number of payments, or the nature of the payment. It's only the individual's name.

And in the one we put forward to you today, there are no new items. They're all items that have been agreed to in the past.

To answer your questions--and hopefully I caught them all--I'm not aware that the items for which names are being withheld are items for which names have already been published somewhere else. My understanding, with respect to the miscellaneous items, is that the majority of these items relate to cases where a confidentiality clause or other restrictive clause exists. Thus the identity of the recipient is withheld in accordance with the terms of the settlement. As examples, the miscellaneous items include settlements for grievances, settlements for claims related to wrongful dismissal, and contract disputes.

The “as required” I think is supposed to be an invitation such that if you have any questions, we will provide information as required. We would have to look at what confidentiality agreements exist, but the idea of the in camera was to invite you, if you had any specific questions or concerns. And certainly it would relate to any of the items that would be incorporated in miscellaneous instances of non-disclosure of the name.

I hope I caught them all.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

The floor is open for further speakers.

I'll give you a second time if I don't have any other first-time speakers.

I don't see any, so Mr. Byrne, go ahead, please.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think anyone really has any serious issues with that, except what was not proposed--and I asked for it at a separate place--was a capacity for the committee to still not be barred from accessing this information on an in camera basis, and to include that in the context of our routine motion that authorized the non-disclosure of these names.

Could you explain just a little bit further the payments made to inmates? I'm really having trouble with that one.

[Suzie Gignac]

If you were to look at last year's public accounts, generally the reasoning behind the payments made to inmates was that there could be prejudice, which could jeopardize the safe transition of inmates back into the public. So for one reason or another, the department has requested that we withhold the specific name but the amount of the payment and the nature of the payment are still disclosed in the public accounts.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

That's on an itemized basis--not as an aggregate--within the public accounts?

[Suzie Gignac]

Each award is specifically identified.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, I don't think I'd have any problem with this as long as we did not create for ourselves a blinder that would prevent us from viewing specific details on an in camera basis, either prior to or after the publication of the public accounts.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You would be entitled to place a motion to that effect, but unless there was a decision of this committee, that would be the only way that would happen.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I understand.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Is there further debate?

As I am hearing none, do you want to place such a motion?