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.