Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. Yesterday, Ms. Snider, in answering a question about why she did not sign one of the termination contracts, I believe indicated, and this is not a direct quote, but I believe she indicated something to the effect "I did not have the delegated authority to sign the contract." In a return to an oral question made by Minister Handley as the Minister of Finance, he indicates:

As the Minister for the public service, I have sole authority and responsibility to manage the public service in a manner consistent with the Public Service Act. Many of the authorities have been delegated to deputy ministers.

Apparently, the ability to sign a contract, a termination contract of this nature, was outside of those authorities that had been delegated. Is there somewhere that we can see what levels of authority have been delegated to deputy ministers? There must be some policies, some regulations that clearly indicate what is inside and outside the delegated authority. For instance, just as an example, if there is a termination contract signed that allows for more severance to be paid than is indicated expressly in the terms of the contract, is that something that falls inside or outside the deputy's delegated authority? Is there somewhere we can see that?

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I do not mind sharing the letter of delegation that was signed off by then Minister Todd in 1996 that outlined the terms. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That would be appreciated. Just a couple more things. I would also like to see if we could get copies of both termination contracts with the appropriate confidential information blacked out on them, for instance, dollars and these kinds of things, which would infringe upon this third-party privacy I am not interested in seeing. What I am interested in seeing is the two termination contracts of the former chief of staff and the former principal secretary. I believe that should be something that this House could see, as long as there is no confidential information that would infringe on that third-party privacy.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, it does not matter how much we black out on it, we cannot release that kind of information, except within the ATIPP provisions, the main one being third-party concurrence. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I will have to accept that at this point. I feel there were a lot of questions asked and not properly answered or, in my opinion, skirted around in the last couple of days in dealing with this, but I am satisfied that the Auditor General is coming in behind this to have a look thoroughly at all of these matters.

One last question I have on this is, you have seen, Mr. Chairman, in the days of questions about this supplementary appropriation and this amount of money, the termination contracts, much concern expressed. I guess we should be clear that this came before Cabinet, or FMB, and was approved. Apparently, there were not that many concerns at FMB because it came to this House without being changed. I do not know if it was questioned, but at any case, it was approved by all the Cabinet Ministers sitting on FMB.

I would just like Minister Handley to verify that although this House has had many, many questions, Cabinet did indeed support and approve this.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification on my last answer, I had said third-party concurrence. It is actually third-party notice, and then that kicks in the process through ATIPP, just to be clear on that.

With regard to the January 21st approval of the special warrant by FMB, yes, FMB approved it. The money, as I had said before, had already been committed through a contract, so the merits of the contract were not the question that was looked at. The question that was looked at by FMB at that point is, does the department have the money in their appropriation to be able to do this or do we need a supp? That is the issue that was looked at and approved on January 21st. Thank you.

Thank you. Just to be clear, when the Financial Management Board, and FMB are the Members of Cabinet wearing different hats, when FMB approved this, they were simply approving that this come forward because there was not money in the budget. They were in no way suggesting that they felt that this was within terms of contracts, or this should have been approved in the first place, or this should have happened at all. What they were saying was we agree, there is not money in the budget for this and obviously, there would not be and therefore it came forward to this House. Is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

That is correct. That is what FMB was looking at. Did the department have the money in their appropriation to cover it? If not, it would have to be approved. We are not looking at, after the fact, the merits of how the contract was worded or signed or anything like that. It was only did the department have the money or did we need a supp for this? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. So this is something I hope the Auditor General will look into. If I understand it correctly, FMBS took a look at this to decide whether or not this should be approved, looked at the termination contract which had been signed and agreed the amount we are paying out is set out in the termination contract and there are signatures with authority on it, so we will approve it. Never mind the fact that may not have jived with the original employment contract. It was one contract away, so FMBS was only approving that second termination contract. They approved it on the basis that yes, the amount being paid was stipulated in that termination contract. Then that came forward to FMB, who are only looking to see if in fact there was money in the budget. Not whether or not that made sense, but whether there was money in the budget and they approved it on that basis.

It really raises a lot of questions for me on checks and balances. There seem to be a myriad of ways through this maze in which money ends up at this level in the House. It has already been spent, the cheque has been cashed and I have a lot of concerns about that.

I will leave it with that, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly hope the Auditor General will be able to look into these matters and get answers to many of the questions we have asked and have not been able to get, or have gotten behind closed doors but have not been able to get in this public forum. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. A statement. I did not hear a question there. Did you want to respond, Mr. Handley?

Mr. Chairman, certainly. I think the Auditor General, as part of her duties, will be doing that. She looks at the contracts we sign, the supps that are approved, the guidelines, regulations and so on to do this, as a matter of course. With the motion that was passed today, that will be an extra piece of advice to her to do her job. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. We are on page 6, Executive, operations expenditures, special warrant, Cabinet Secretariat, $776,000.

Page 7, Executive, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, directorate, $948,000.