Colleagues, shortly before we adjourned for the summer on June 18, the day after the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight tabled its twelfth report, I began my speech by reiterating the importance of this committee and its responsibilities. To avoid any ambiguity as to my support for such a committee, I’d like to point out that I, along with my colleague Senator Dean, was one of the main architects and supporters of its creation. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is the audit and oversight model best suited to our institution.

When this report was tabled, I also expressed my surprise that certain information contained in the committee’s report had not been discussed with the members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Consequently, the members can’t get answers to their questions. That is why I adjourned said motion.

Colleagues, it is important to rigorously lay the foundations of this new standing committee and ensure that, while doing its work independently of the Internal Economy Committee and with sufficient means, it doesn’t lose sight of the meaning of its mission.

With this in mind, my comments today will be more of a warning than an objection.

I want to share two parts of this twelfth report that concern me. The first is the size of the budget requested and the number of permanent human resources. When the chief audit executive begins their work, it is normal for that individual to partner with competent staff. That being said, I wonder if all the requested staff should be hired on a permanent basis from the start. Wouldn’t it be better to evaluate the needs at the end of the first two planned audits? The budget allocated for this already includes a significant reserve, meaning an unspent amount. I think it will be important not to over-budget.

My second consideration is the interface with the Senate Administration. The intention behind creating this standing committee was to optimize every aspect of our management by leveraging the committee’s findings and recommendations. This calls for effective and constructive collaboration with members of the administration, senators and their offices, while respecting the independence of the auditors.

Given the streamlining measures the Internal Economy Committee is imposing on the entire administration, including the hiring freeze and other efficiency measures, I encourage the committee to take those measures into account and not duplicate the administration’s work. There can be a fine line between the Internal Economy Committee’s ongoing responsibility to provide accurate, validated data and the Audit Committee’s responsibilities. I am obliged to respect the in camera nature of the Internal Economy Committee’s discussions, but I will say that I’m very concerned about this. I believe there’s a real risk of duplicating activities and using double the resources. I therefore encourage the two committees to engage in more seamless communication about this.

As such, I will examine the results of your work between now and the tabling of the Audit Committee’s report for the next financial year in light of these two elements, among others. In the meantime, I have every confidence that you will exercise your mandate judiciously given your desire to help optimize the management of public funds in this instance.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

One, yes.

I’ll try to bring greater clarity to the issues. My first point is with regard to a sort of duplication between both committees, the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and the Committee on Audit and Oversight. From the beginning, I would caution the Committee on Audit and Oversight to make sure that they understand and enforce their mandate in a way that would be complementary to the role of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which still has to bring estimates that are validated and even audited and which then will also be audited by the Committee on Audit and Oversight.

My second point is that it’s not because the Audit and Oversight Committee is created — and I understand they need resources from the beginning and deserve treatment that is different from the other directorates and to not be subjected to the restrictions and measures we have taken to make sure, for instance, that the hiring is frozen, with exceptions, in other directorates.

At the same time, I believe it’s important that this committee do not plan for permanent resources without being prudent, without having restraint and without taking — perhaps over the first two years — the time to see the amount and nature of permanent resources they would need.

This is my caution. Once again, I did not object to the report. I just wanted to make sure that we are starting on the right basis. Once again, I reiterate that not only was I one of the supporters of this committee, but I was very active, together with Senator Dean at the time, because we were certain that this committee was important and necessary. But it must be balanced and not become a big committee that would exist for itself and for its own interests.

It must be a supplementary question linked to the first one, because the next item is a very important one, and I want to make sure I have enough time.