Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 14 - Evidence - September 28, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 28, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met in public this day at 8:34 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. First of all, I’d like to point out that we have with us this morning, replacing Senator Campbell, Senator Woo. Welcome, Senator Woo. Also, I’d like to congratulate Senator Woo on his election as leader of the ISG group. We look forward to working with him in that capacity.
Of course, we all wish Senator Campbell well. You have heard that he had a little bit of a minor health issue. Of course, we wish him well and a quick recovery.
Of course, I point out that our regular member of Internal Economy, Senator Saint-Germain, also got elected as deputy leader of the ISG group. We congratulate her and look forward to continuing to work with her as we have over the last little while.
I also want to congratulate — a lot of congratulations going around this morning — our new law clerk, who was officially appointed yesterday by the Senate. Once again, Jacqueline Kuehl, congratulations.
We’ll get right to Item No. 1on the agenda, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings for the September 21, 2017, the public portion of the agenda.
[Translation]
I think that Senator Dupuis has a few comments for us.
Senator Dupuis: We are talking about the minutes of proceedings for September 21?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Dupuis: I would like to thank Mr. Charbonneau for making changes to the minutes of proceedings to ensure more consistency between the two versions. The French version says that the subcommittee is considering the auditor general’s regulations regarding audits and oversight activities, and it talks about creating an oversight mechanism and an appropriate structure. The English version should be modified by removing the term “oversight” from the second paragraph; in the third paragraph, the words “an oversight body which would have. . .” should be removed.
The Chair: I think that we all agree with what Senator Dupuis has proposed.
Senator Batters, do you have a question?
[English]
Senator Batters: On page 2 of 5 of the minutes, the item about the mandate for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, the third paragraph of the motion of Senator Wells, it says in the minutes that the study consider the audit industry’s best practices. That motion was initially brought, and then Senator Wells brought an amendment at the committee. Then he provided a slight amendment further to that to add a few things, but I don’t think it was amended from saying that the study consider industry best practices because then I recall asking him about it. I asked, “What does that mean? Does that mean legislatures, businesses?” And he said, “Accounting, the accounting industry.” So I’m not sure if the minute reading that the study consider the audit industry’s best practices correctly reflects what the actual motion said. I don’t remember a further motion about that amending that language.
The Chair: Senator Wells, do you want to clarify that?
Senator Wells: As I read it, it’s clear to me, of course, because I wrote it. But I’m not sure about the necessity for clarification. I don’t see a need for clarification, chair.
Senator Batters: It’s not what was said last week, though.
Senator Mitchell: I find this difficult to follow. I think there’s an important distinction that we may be addressing in this amendment, and I just want clarification. I don’t see this oversight body as being the internal audit body. I see this oversight body as either recommending a way in which to structure an internal audit body, which would then be under the administration, which is probably how you would do it, or they actually structure an internal audit body that they supervise. I’m afraid that what this looks like to me — and I may be totally wrong — is that we’re actually saying that all this oversight body would be is an internal audit body. But am I completely wrong about that?
Senator Wells: Yes, that’s incorrect. We had our first meeting yesterday, not to get too far into the weeds. But we’re looking at the mandate of this body, which is what the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates was mandated to do, to look at the mandate and structure of this body and where it fits into our entire system. So it wouldn’t be, I don’t think — I don’t want to prejudge what the subcommittee may recommend or what CIBA may accept, but I don’t think it would be just an internal audit body.
Senator Mitchell: I’m saying that’s just one function that it will either consider or manage, but it has many other things to do, which I think it should not manage but supervise or advise on or whatever but not tell us what to do about. I think I’m clear. This amendment will not alter that perception.
Senator Wells: That’s right.
Senator Dupuis: When we talked last week, we wanted to make sure that the subcommittee would look at the entire audit function, how it would be structured, so internally, externally, the entire thing.
I did not want to take on my shoulders Senator Batters’ remarks that industry did not fit in this and that it should be removed. I don’t want to speak on behalf of Senator Batters, but the French version does not refer to the industry’s best practices. Because she had made the point — and I think we had agreed — to remove “industry’s” from the wording and word it in terms of best practices regarding audit.
The Chair: On Senator Batters’ point, I agree with Senator Dupuis and Senator Batters. I think it’s just a question of wording, but the wording that Senator Batters talked about best reflects what we are trying to get across here. We will do that; I think colleagues are in agreement.
If I can answer the question of Senator Mitchell. As we discussed last time, the audit subcommittee has always been responsible for overseeing our internal audit process, which we have pointed out we put that aside in the last few years during the Auditor General’s report. While we’re looking at the oversight body, they are interconnected issues. At the end of the day, the oversight body will have a specific role displacing steering as the body which reviews expense disputes and also has the oversight capacity in terms of our internal audit process. That’s why we’ve said it should be reviewed in parallel going forward.
Senator Wells: To your comment, I wouldn’t prejudge that this audit and oversight committee would replace steering on that. That’s something we’re looking at.
The Chair: Again, that’s an objective we have, at least based on the recommendations of the Auditor General, and I’m pointing out that that’s the mandate we’ve given you. You’re right, I’m not prejudging what the outcome is. I apologize again. Any more questions on that, colleagues?
I also want to point out, colleagues, if you see any discrepancies in the public or private portions of the minutes, don’t hesitate to call our clerk, Daniel Charbonneau, in advance of the meeting. That way we can get it done a little more expeditiously. Thank you all.
Item No. 2 is the fourth report on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It’s an item for information.
Pursuant to the order of this committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is authorized to make decisions when the committee is not able to meet. It has an obligation to report at the first available time.
I’m tabling the report of the subcommittee. The report is before you. Do colleagues have questions in regard to this?
If not, we’ll move on.
Item No. 3, I know that Senator Plett had an item under “other items.”
Senator Plett: I used to be a regular member of JIC, and then when I replaced yourself as the co-chair of JIC, we asked Senator MacDonald to replace me as a regular member. We never got that endorsed officially by this committee, which needs to be in order for him to make motions or votes.
I would move that the Honourable Senator Michael MacDonald be named as a member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council representing the Senate.
Senator Mitchell: Could I ask who are the other members representing the Senate? Would it just be Senator MacDonald?
Senator Plett: And Senator Downe.
The Chair: Any other questions, colleagues, on this?
It was moved by Senator Plett that the Honourable Senator MacDonald be named as a member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council, known as JIC, representing the Senate. Are we all in favour, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)