Public Accounts Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Tomasz Popiel]

The only thing I can add is that further information is available in the Public Accounts, volume III, in aggregate, or it could be...the decision-maker is available for parliamentary scrutiny as well.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In theory, to the best of your knowledge, a parliamentary committee could still compel that information even if a redaction has been made. Is that correct?

[Tomasz Popiel]

With apologies, I'm not an expert on that.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Does the chair have a view on that? If a parliamentary committee requested that information about a redaction be made public, it would be in the committee's right to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Absolutely, yes. We can call for any information. We just have to know about it.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I guess the final question would be that if a decision is made to redact, would the reasons for that redaction be made available—or could the reasons be made available—to parliamentarians, and what would be the mechanism to make that information available?

[Tomasz Popiel]

Right now, there's nothing specifically written in on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Chambers, let me clarify. It's a long precedent. We've had the law clerk in here on several occasions to remind and inform committee members, as well as parliamentarians, of the unfettered right that committee parliamentarians have, through the committee, to call for any documents from the Government of Canada.

We've had some debates on that. This committee has managed to come to consensus around it, either in public or in camera, but of course committees do have that unfettered right to do so, and that would remain. The challenge, of course, would be knowing what to ask.

I take the point that's being raised, as I suppose you could deduce from the Public Accounts, volume III, the gross amount with whatever was redacted or made public and determine if there is a large number that's unaccounted for. It obviously would be better to have a line that at least indicated that there was an amount that was publicly available, without a name, just to give us a sense of what was going on behind the scene.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

If I may, I believe that it is reasonable to request some discretion on disclosure, for a whole bunch of different reasons, and I don't think we need to envision all of them today.

If there were some acknowledgement—and I don't enjoy and I don't think we should try drafting this on the fly—or an ability for the government to indicate the number of entities that meet the threshold, which in theory is available today through Order Paper questions, etc., so that there would be an ability for parliamentarians to understand how many redactions have been made from the registry, right...? If we agree that we can get the number of entities that are meeting the threshold and we have the registry, then in theory someone can figure out whether there's been a redaction. If we can get some agreement that the information is readily available, I'm open to providing some discretion, but that we underscore that the default is to disclose, which I think we've heard, which is good.

I'm open to suggestions on that from my colleagues or the government. I just think it would be important for parliamentarians to know when a redaction is made, which would then provide the ability to hold that decision-maker accountable. I don't know if that needs to be written in legislation, but some agreement would be helpful on that front.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemire has indicated that he'd like the floor.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In that same vein, there are indeed some things that concern me. If a name is excluded from the registry, will it be redacted, struck out, or simply removed? We have absolutely no idea. We don’t even know when a name is removed.

I propose that we still allow people to see that a name has been redacted, and to see the reason why it was redacted.

I'm comfortable with the confidential, personal or sensitive nature of the information being considered a valid reason. In this context, national security was cited as the reason in the cases of Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen. We must ensure that we do not simply remove the name and shift the columns, effectively making it appear as though this claim never existed.

Is there a way to make sure that the name isn't removed, but rather redacted with justification?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We'll go to Mr. Turnbull please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I was going to make a comment. I don't know if I have an answer to that.

This is similar to the point Mr. Lemire just made. I assumed, when reading this bill and the amendments we were proposing, that there would be very few cases in this registry with no information provided at all. You heard the officials say it could be in part or in whole, so I guess that raises the concern.

In my mind, if there were to be information disclosed, then there would be a line item in the registry. I could envision the name, but maybe the name is occasionally redacted for a good reason. I don't know. I think that the name is probably the least likely.... Maybe I'm wrong on that, so I'll just leave that for a moment.

The point is that you have a line item, no matter what, with disclosed information, and anything missing has obviously been redacted. If there is an empty line item, it would imply that there was a redaction of a whole line in the registry. That would give you some clarity on how much has been redacted and where, specifically. It answers the question. It's not like a blackout redaction, but I think it's the same thing. It would be an empty field in the registry itself.

I'm wondering if that is implied by the legislation and the proposed amendments we're discussing.

It's hard for me to determine that without asking the officials here.

Is that your understanding? If a name happens not to be disclosed for sensitive reasons, or if personal or confidential information is withheld from the registry, I assume that there would still be an entry. The amount would be there, and other required information that we've added here would be disclosed. You would have only a line item without a name.

I'm sure we can envision other cases where the name may be included but other information may not be disclosed.

[Isabelle Brault, Director General, Legislative Policy Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency]

It's admittable for the CRA. Although I'm only authorized to speak to the powers of the Minister of National Revenue, perhaps I have a few general comments.

The parliamentary debates and the discussions at committees can be used to determine the intent and the scope of legislative provisions to be applied. That is one tool. However, I suppose that greater clarity in the text could also be deemed as preferable by this committee.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

If I may, that was the intent I read into this. We could clarify it here in committee, which would inform CRA's practices in the future. Is that right?

I don't know if Mr. Chambers and Mr. Lemire think what I have proposed is satisfactory, but I would be agreeable to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm not moving a subamendment.

This is regarding proposed subsection (3) where it says:

Despite subsection (2), the President of the Treasury Board may exclude from the registry any information

To me, “exclude” is like “delete”. As Mr. Lemire mentioned, if the word “exclude” was “redact”, that implies to me that information is still in the registry. It is blacked out, but there is, in theory, an entry. That probably gets you what you're looking for.

This is for the officials. If the word “exclude” became “redact”, would it effectively mean being blacked out on a screen versus being unsure of whether there was an entry there at all?

[Isabelle Brault]

We do not have expertise as legislative drafters. If there's ambiguity, the committee might find it more prudent to specify it in those words. We've gone to the extent of our expertise on this for what we're at liberty to share at this moment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

What I was proposing, I think, amounts to the same thing. Maybe you disagree, but this is a table with columns of information that are labelled. If there is an input field under one of the criteria in one of the columns, it's empty. That means there's been a redaction, because all the information is required to be disclosed by default. Essentially, as long as we clarify that all of the missing information has to be identifiable.... I think that's the issue here. We want anything that's been redacted or not disclosed to be identifiable.

You're suggesting, Mr. Chair, that perhaps it say “redacted” in that input field, but I am saying that if it's empty, then it has actually been redacted. The only exception to that could be in cases where they don't have the information, but I think that's going to be almost impossible, given the limited scope of this.

Perhaps in our proceedings today we can give direction to the CRA that we all agree unanimously that all input fields have to be included and that information not provided means there was a redaction. Then I think we're good. That would be my humble suggestion. Again, I realize it's the will of the committee, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I agree.

As you know, I can't make amendments or subamendments. I'm just throwing out a few ideas, so it'll be up to the committee to accept and move on.

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I obviously have a hard time imagining that the information will actually be presented in a table, and that the row would be left out. If that were the case, I would have no problem leaving traces that would allow people to retrieve the information. Otherwise, I think “redaction” might be the right term to include in the bill, because the form in which the information is made public isn’t necessarily specified.

I would add a justification to the proposed amendment, such as the protection of confidential, personal or sensitive information. I think it would be useful to state that information was redacted because the President of the Treasury Board deemed it sensitive. We're not preventing the minister from doing so, but I think it would be appropriate to include the justification.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

Mr. Chambers, any comments?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I appreciate trying to get some clarification. I thank the chair for his helpful suggestion, as well as my colleague from the Bloc, who I think is trying to figure out a way to make this palatable.

From my perspective, I think it's a reasonable suggestion. If that were formally moved as a subamendment, I think that would be welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Lemire, do you have a subamendment to propose?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

As you mentioned, language could be added to exclude from the registry any information, along with a justification.