Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:

1.in the French version of point number 3, by replacing the proposed new text by the following:

“12-5. Sauf dans le cas des membres d’office, des membres du Comité permanent sur l’éthique et les conflits d’intérêts des sénateurs et des membres du Comité permanent de l’audit et de la surveillance, le remplacement d’un membre d’un comité peut s’effectuer au moyen d’un avis remis au greffier du Sénat, qui le fait consigner aux Journaux du Sénat. Cet avis est signé :”;

2.in paragraph (b) of point number 5, by deleting paragraph (c) in the proposed new text and renumbering the remaining paragraphs in consequence;

3.in the French version of point number 14, in the proposed new text, by replacing the rule number “12-22. (1)” by “12-22. (2)”;

4.in the English version of point number 15, in the introductory wording, by replacing the words “new rules 12-3(7) and (8)” by “new rules 12-22(7) and (8)”; and

5.in point number 15, in the proposed new text, by replacing the rule number “12-3. (7)” by “12-22. (7)”.

I’m certain that you all followed what I said and that you understand. It was very clear. Thank you very much for your attention.

On debate?

Yes, of course.

Keep your questions short.

I appreciate the question. It’s obviously one of definition. The title is to be discussed but obviously the committee is not really there. To a large degree it will engage auditors to do internal and external audits. The committee itself will not spend an immense amount of time doing that work. If you look at corporations, they call them audit committees but the committee never does the audit. It employs other people to do the work, so I would argue the title remains appropriate. It doesn’t mean they do it themselves but they have the right to so engage.

The concentration should be on the responsibilities and the authorities we give this committee. There aren’t a lot of paragraphs, but that should be reviewed to make sure you agree with their authority and their job. I have no personal opinion regarding the title, but I see nothing significantly wrong with the existing one.

Senator Massicotte, would you take a question, please?

Yes.

I haven’t reviewed this in depth, but I would like you to tell me who this audit committee will report to initially.

That is a good question. It’s very important to note that this committee has no authority to do things. Its sole responsibility, as so enumerated, is to report to the Senate. If the Senate wants to respond to the recommendations they receive or to the findings of the audit committee, it’s up to the Senate. They have no capacity to execute the recommendations. It always remains with the Senate, and that’s where the power lies.

For clarification, then, you don’t go the route of reporting to the Internal Economy Committee or CIBA; you go directly to the Senate.

Yes. The report will be deposited with the Senate, period.

I was looking at rule 12-13(2). Did you look at that rule and did you consider amending it? I would like your opinion on that. It reads:

The chair of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight shall be a Senator who is not a member of the recognized party or recognized parliamentary group to which the chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration belongs.

I find that unusual, particularly considering the current move toward a more independent Senate. This rule seems completely superfluous to me.

The goal is to ensure that the chair of the audit committee is not the same person as the chair of the Internal Economy Committee.

I completely agree that it should not be the same person. However, it doesn’t make sense that the person must not be a member of the same party or the same recognized group since all senators here are independent.

Indeed, the Chair of Internal Economy is often an independent member, and we want to ensure that the responsibilities are shared by two different people.

Is it not because a recognized group of parliamentarians can include the ISG and that the whole point of all this is to have checks and balances?

That is a very good question.

Are you asking for five more minutes?

If necessary, yes.

Is leave granted?

The answer to the question is twofold. The whole point of all this is to have checks and balances, and the Independent Senators Group is a recognized parliamentary group.

The answer is yes.