|
1. OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - BILL 130
- REVISED MANDATE BUREAU
DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL - PROJET DE LOI 130 - MANDAT RÉVISÉ |
Committee RecommendationS AS AMENDED
That Council:
1. Aapprove the changes to the mandate of
the Office of the Auditor General recommended
in the following reportby
deeming the City’s current Auditor General to be the statutory auditor general
for the purposes of Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001,
as amended.
2. Grant
the required two-year extension to the current term of the Auditor General,
bringing it to
31 December 2013.
3. Recommend
that a future
Council consider that the term
of the next Auditor General be set at ten-years non-renewable.
4. Consider the
creation of an Audit Committee as a Sub-Committee of the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee in
the mid-term Governance Review.
5. Approve
that the
reporting protocol for the Annual Report be
as
follows:
a) Notice
of Tabling of Annual Report with Council;
b) Tabling
at following meeting of Council
and initial questions;
i. Release
of the Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of
tabling,
ii. Concurrent
with the release to the media, the AG and senior staff will provide a briefing session, open
to the media and the public, on the
Annual Report for all Councillors,
iii. Following
tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer any
further questions from Council or the media;
c) Referral
of the Annual Report to the appropriate
Standing Committee
to allow for public delegations only;
d) Referral
of the report resulting from the Standing
Committee to subsequent Council meeting where the Auditor General will be
available for final questions; and,
e) Referral
to the appropriate
Committee for on-going
monitoring.
6. Approve
that, for
any audit
of a confidential nature being conducted by the Auditor General (e.g.
as a
result of a Fraud and Waste Hotline call), the
resulting audit report be provided to Council at an in
camera
session coinciding with
the release of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
7. Direct that those audit reports completed during 2006 which
were not presented to Council be provided as part of the 2007 Annual Report in
accordance with the reporting protocol for confidential reports outlined in
Recommendation 6.
Recommendation
5
That
Council approve the creation of an Audit Committee as a Standing Committee of
Council.
Recommendation
6
That
the reporting protocol for the Annual Report be established as follows:
Notice
of Tabling
of Annual Report with Council;
Tabling
at following meeting of Council meeting and initial questions;
Release
of the Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of
tabling,
Concurrent
with the release to the media, the AG and senior
staff will provide a briefing on the Annual Report for all Councillors,
Following
tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer any
further questions from Council or the media;
Referral
of the Annual Report to the Audit Committee
to allow for public delegations only;
Referral
of the report resulting from the Audit Committee to subsequent Council meeting
where the Auditor General will be available for final questions; and,
Referral
to the Audit Committee for on-going monitoring.
Recommendation
7
That,
should a Fraud and Waste Hotline call result in an audit of a confidential
nature being conducted by the Auditor General, the resulting audit report be
provided to Council at an in camera session coinciding with the release of the
Auditor General’s Annual Report.
8. Direct
the inclusion of a separate audit report of the financial accounts of the Office
of the Auditor General within
the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements.
9. Consider an
increase in the remuneration
of the Auditor General position, effective in 2008, in
accordance with the salary scale established for the
Deputy City Manager position and that progression within the pay-band for the
position be set at an annual rate of 5%, subject to the AG
successfully completing the annual audit plan.
RecommandationS MODIFIéES du comité
Que le Conseil :
1. Approuve les changements du mandat du
Bureau du vérificateur général et de désigner le vérificateur général actuel de
la Ville vérificateur général statutaire aux fins de la partie V.1 de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, telle que modifiée.
2. Accorde la prolongation
nécessaire de deux ans du mandat actuel du vérificateur général jusqu’au 31
décembre 2013.
3. Recommande qu’un futur
Conseil envisage la possibilité que le mandat du vérificateur ne soit pas
renouvelable et d’une durée fixe de 10 ans.
4. Envisage la possibilité
de transformer le Comité de vérification en sous-comité
du Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique lors de
l’examen sur la structure de gestion publique à mimandat.
5. Approuve le protocole
de présentation du Rapport annuel ci‑dessous :
a) Avis de dépôt du Rapport annuel auprès du
Conseil.
b) Dépôt à la réunion suivante du Conseil et
questions préliminaires.
i. Diffusion, sous embargo, du Rapport annuel
aux médias le matin du dépôt.
ii. Parallèlement à la diffusion aux médias, le
VG et les cadres supérieurs organisent une séance d’information, ouverte aux
médias et au public, sur le Rapport annuel à tous les conseillers.
iii. Après le dépôt du Rapport, le VG et les
cadres supérieurs sont disponibles pour répondre à toute question
supplémentaire émanant du Conseil ou des médias.
c) Renvoi du Rapport annuel au Comité permanent
approprié afin d’entendre les délégations publiques seulement.
d) Renvoi du rapport résultant des travaux du
Comité permanent à la réunion suivante du Conseil, où le VG sera disponible
pour répondre aux dernières questions.
e) Renvoi au Comité approprié à des fins de
suivi permanent.
6. Approuve que, pour
toute vérification de nature confidentielle du vérificateur général (par
exemple, dans le cas d’un appel sur la Ligne directe de
fraude et d’abus), le rapport qui en découle soit présenté au
Conseil lors d’une réunion à huis‑clos coïncidant avec la
publication du Rapport du vérificateur général.
7. Ordonne
que les rapports des vérifications menées en 2006 et qui n’ont pas été
présentés au Conseil soient intégrés au Rapport annuel de 2007, conformément au
protocole de présentation des rapports
confidentiels mentionnés à la recommandation 6.
8. Ordonne l’inclusion
d’un rapport distinct de vérification des comptes financiers du Bureau du
vérificateur général dans le cadre de la vérification externe annuelle des
états financiers de la Ville.
9. Envisage
une augmentation
de la rémunération du poste de vérificateur général à partir de 2008,
conformément à l’échelle salariale établie pour le poste de directeur municipal
adjoint, avec progression dans la fourchette à un taux annuel de 5 %, sous
réserve d’avoir terminé avec succès le plan de vérification annuel du VG.
Documentation
1. Auditor General’s and City Solicitor’s joint
report dated 9 November 2007 (ACS2007-OAG-0001).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 19 November 2007.
Report to/Rapport au :
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
9 November 2007/le 9 novembre 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par :
Alain Lalonde, Auditor General/Vérificateur général
613-580-2424
ext. 14226, Alain.Lalonde@ottawa.ca
and / et
M.
Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor/Chef du contentieux
613-580-2424 ext.
21215, Rick.Oconnor@ottawa.ca
|
City Wide / À l'échelle de la
ville |
Ref N°: ACS2007-OAG-0001 |
SUBJECT: OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL -
BILL
130 - REVISED MANDATE
OBJET : BUREAU
DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL -
PROJET DE LOI 130 - MANDAT RÉVISÉ
FOLLOWING
PASSING OF THE NEW MUNICIPAL ACT OF ONTARIO
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee recommend Council:
1. Aapprove the changes to the mandate of
the Office of the Auditor General recommended
in the following reportby
deeming the City’s current Auditor General to be the statutory auditor general
for the purposes of Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001,
as amended.
2. Grant
the required two-year extension to the current term of the Auditor General,
bringing it to
31 December 2013.
3. Recommend
that a future
Council consider that the term of
the next Auditor General be set at ten-years non-renewable.
4. Consider the
creation of an Audit Committee as a Standing Committee of Council
in the mid-term Governance Review.
5. Approve
that the
reporting protocol for the Annual Report be
as follows:
a) Notice
of Tabling of Annual Report with Council;
b) Tabling
at following meeting of Council and initial questions;
i. Release
of the Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of
tabling,
ii. Concurrent
with the release to
the media, the AG and senior staff will provide a briefing session, open
to the media and the public, on the
Annual Report for all Councillors,
iii. Following
tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer any
further questions
from Council or the media;
c) Referral
of the Annual Report to the appropriate
Standing
Committee to allow for public delegations only;
d) Referral
of the report resulting from the Standing
Committee to subsequent Council meeting where the Auditor General
will be available for final questions; and,
e) Referral
to the appropriate
Committee for on-going monitoring.
6. Approve
that, for
any audit
of a confidential nature being conducted by the Auditor General (e.g.
as a
result of a Fraud and Waste Hotline
call), the
resulting audit report be provided to Council at an in
camera
session coinciding with the release of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
7. Direct
that those audit reports completed during 2006 which were not presented to
Council be provided as part of the 2007 Annual Report in accordance with the
reporting protocol for confidential reports outlined in Recommendation 6.
Recommendation
5
That
Council approve the creation of an Audit Committee as a Standing Committee of
Council.
Recommendation 6
That
the reporting protocol for the Annual Report be established as follows:
Notice
of Tabling of Annual Report with Council;
Tabling
at following meeting of Council meeting and initial questions;
Release
of the Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of
tabling,
Concurrent
with the release to the media, the AG and senior staff will provide a briefing
on the Annual Report for all Councillors,
Following
tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer any
further questions from Council or the media;
Referral
of the Annual Report to the Audit Committee to allow for public delegations
only;
Referral
of the report resulting from the Audit Committee to subsequent Council meeting
where the Auditor General will
be available for final questions; and,
Referral
to the Audit Committee for on-going monitoring.
Recommendation
7
That,
should a Fraud and Waste Hotline call result in an audit of a confidential
nature being conducted by the Auditor General, the resulting audit report be provided
to Council at an in camera session coinciding with the release of the Auditor
General’s Annual Report.
8. Direct
the inclusion of a separate audit report of the financial accounts of the Office
of the Auditor General within
the
annual external audit of the City’s financial statements.
9. Approve
an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General position, effective in
2008, in accordance with the salary scale established for
the
Deputy City Manager position and that progression
within the pay-band for the position be set at an annual rate of 5%, subject to
the AG successfully completing the annual audit plan.
.
Que le Comité des
services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil :
1. D’approuver
les changements du mandat du Bureau du vérificateur général et de désigner le
vérificateur général actuel de la Ville vérificateur général statutaire aux
fins de la partie V.1 de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, telle
que modifiée.
2. D’accorder la prolongation nécessaire
de deux ans du mandat actuel du vérificateur général jusqu’au 31 décembre 2013.
3. De recommander qu’un futur Conseil
envisage la possibilité que le mandat du vérificateur ne soit pas renouvelable
et d’une durée fixe de 10 ans.
4. D’envisager la possibilité de
transformer le Comité de vérification en Comité permanent du Conseil lors de l’examen
sur la structure de gestion publique à mimandat.
5. D’approuver le protocole de
présentation du Rapport annuel ci‑dessous :
a) Avis de dépôt du Rapport annuel auprès du
Conseil.
b) Dépôt à la réunion suivante du Conseil et
questions préliminaires.
i. Diffusion, sous embargo, du Rapport annuel
aux médias le matin du dépôt.
ii. Parallèlement à la diffusion aux médias, le
VG et les cadres supérieurs organisent une séance d’information, ouverte aux
médias et au public, sur le Rapport annuel à tous les conseillers.
iii. Près le dépôt du Rapport, le VG et les
cadres supérieurs sont disponibles pour répondre à toute question
supplémentaire émanant du Conseil ou des médias.
c) Renvoi du Rapport annuel au Comité permanent
approprié afin d’entendre les délégations publiques seulement.
d) Renvoi du rapport résultant des travaux du
Comité permanent à la réunion suivante du Conseil, où le VG sera disponible
pour répondre aux dernières questions.
e) Renvoi au Comité approprié à des fins de
suivi permanent.
6. D’approuver que, pour toute
vérification de nature confidentielle du vérificateur général (par exemple,
dans le cas d’un appel sur la Ligne directe de fraude et d’abus), le
rapport qui en découle soit présenté au Conseil lors d’une réunion à huis‑clos
coïncidant avec la publication du Rapport du vérificateur général.
7. D’ordonner que les rapports des
vérifications menées en 2006 et qui n’ont pas été présentés au Conseil soient
intégrés au Rapport annuel de 2007, conformément au protocole de présentation des rapports confidentiels mentionnés à la
recommandation 6.
8. D’ordonner l’inclusion d’un rapport
distinct de vérification des comptes financiers du Bureau du vérificateur
général dans le cadre de la vérification externe annuelle des états financiers
de la Ville.
9. D’approuver l’augmentation de la
rémunération du poste de vérificateur général à partir de 2008, conformément à
l’échelle salariale établie pour le poste de directeur municipal adjoint, avec
progression dans la fourchette à un taux annuel de 5 %, sous réserve
d’avoir terminé avec succès le plan de vérification annuel du VG.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions
and Analysis:
Bill 130, the Municipal Statute Law
Amendment Act, 2006 made numerous amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Bill provides municipalities with
greater powers and autonomy but balanced with increased accountability and
transparency measures. Specifically,
under Part V.1, of the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 223.19 authorizes
municipalities to appoint an Auditor General.
The City of Ottawa established the Office of the Auditor General in
December 2004 to carry out performance, compliance and financial audits on the
accounts of the City. Under Section
223.19, the Auditor General function has the potential to be enhanced in terms
of its mandate as well as its scope of authority. This would include increased authority to audit “local boards and
such municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients as the
municipality may specify.” Staff
recommend that Council approve changes to the Auditor General’s mandate
pursuant to Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended by Bill 130.
Further to the enhanced mandate provided by
changes to the Municipal Act, 2001, the Office of the Auditor General
has identified other relevant issues for Council to consider which affect the future context within which
the OAG will operate. There is an opportunity
to refine certain aspects of the AG process with the goal of making them more
efficient,
and effective, accountable
and transparent in the future.
These opportunities, including the length of term, a reporting protocol
for the Annual Report and an audit report of the OAG, are described in the
report along with any
additional recommendations where changes to
the current approach are proposed.
Financial
Implications:
There are no financial implications associated with approving this report.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
La Loi 130, Loi de 2006 modifiant des lois
concernant les municipalités, a apporté de nombreuses modifications à la Loi
de 2001 sur les municipalités. La nouvelle loi dote les municipalités de
pouvoirs et d’une autonomie plus larges, mais équilibrés avec une
responsabilisation et des mesures de transparence accrues. De façon plus
précise, l’article 233.19, partie V.1, de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités autorise les municipalités à
nommer un vérificateur général. La Ville d’Ottawa a constitué le Bureau du
vérificateur général en décembre 2004. Celui-ci a le mandat d’effectuer des
vérifications financières, de rendement et de conformité au nom de la Ville.
L’article 233.19 permet à une municipalité d’étendre le mandat et les pouvoirs
du vérificateur général aux conseils locaux, aux corporations contrôlées par la
municipalité ainsi qu’aux bénéficiaires de subventions qu’elle précise. Le
personnel a recommandé au Conseil d’approuver des modifications au mandat du
vérificateur général conformément à la partie V.1 de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, modifiée par la Loi 130.
Outre l’extension du mandat prévue par les
modifications apportées à la Loi de 2001
sur les municipalités, le Bureau du vérificateur général a relevé d’autres
questions pertinentes à soumettre à l’étude du Conseil, qui influeront sur le
contexte dans lequel le Bureau évoluera à l’avenir. Il est possible de parfaire
certains aspects de la démarche inhérente à la fonction de vérificateur général
afin de la rendre plus efficiente et efficace et d’en accroître le degré de
responsabilisation et de transparence. Ces possibilités, qui concernent la
durée du mandat, un protocole pour la présentation du rapport annuel et un
rapport de vérification du Bureau du vérificateur général, sont décrites dans
le rapport, qui renferme des recommandations supplémentaires portant sur les
modifications proposées à la démarche actuelle.
Répercussions financières :
L’adoption de ce rapport n’entraîne aucune
répercussion financière.
BACKGROUND
In December 2004, Council approved the current mandate of the Office of
the Auditor General (OAG). Key features
of this mandate included that the OAG:
*
Is independent of
the City’s administration and reports to Council via an appropriate Standing
Committee;
*
Is responsible
for carrying out performance, compliance and financial audits (except the
annual attest audit) on the accounts and affairs of the City;
*
Will, based on an
annual work plan, undertake audits of the City and affiliated bodies;
*
May, if requested
by Council, audit and report on other matters, however, these audits shall not
take precedence over the primary responsibilities of the Auditor General and
Council requests must provide appropriate funding;
*
Shall have an
annual budget that is set at a fixed percentage of the City’s total operating
budget, currently 0.08%; and,
*
Shall report to
Council, at a minimum, on an annual basis no later than June 30th of
the following year.
On 1 January 2007, the new
Municipal
Act, 2001
(the “Act”),
as amended by Bill 130, of
the Province of Ontario came into effect. Among other provisions, the new revised
Act
contains a number of discretionary sections specific to the
auditor general (AG) function among municipalities. Whereas the City of Toronto has been directed
mandated by the Province to put enact
the provisions related to the AG
in place, other Ontario cities
municipalities have been given the option of both
establishing the position of an auditor general and implementing these statutory
changes or not. As such, subject
to Council approval, the new
revised Act
has the potential to significantly expand the mandate and scope of authority
for the City of Ottawa’s OAG. This
report presents a synopsis of the provisions of the new
Act
as well as recommendations for Council to consider in revising the current
mandate of its AG function.
Under section
Section 223.19, the
revised Act
gives all municipal Councils
councils the authority to create an AG
function whose statutory responsibilities would include “assisting the council
in holding itself and its administrators accountable for the quality of
stewardship over public funds and for achievement of value for money in
municipal operations.” However, the
revised Act expressly states that, “the responsibilities of the Auditor
General shall not include the matters described in Clauses 296(1) (a) or (b)
for which the [external] municipal auditor is responsible.” A complete copy of the statutory provisions
that relate to the auditor general in Bill 130 are set out in Appendix A. If an AG function is created, section Section
223.19 (3) indicates that Council may
assign to the AG statutory responsibility for auditing “its
local boards and such municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients
as the municipality may specify.” With
respect to “grant recipients”, Section 223.19 (4) goes
on to state: “The authority of the [Auditor General…] in relation to a grant
recipient applies only in respect of the grants received by the grant recipient
directly or indirectly from the municipality, a local board or a
municipally-controlled corporation after the date on which this section comes
into force.”
Other key provisions of the Act
with respect to the AG function include:
*
The AG would
report directly to Council
and not through any standing committee;
*
The AG will have
access to any information that the AG believes is
necessary to perform his or her duties;
*
The AG may
examine any person on oath on
any pertinent to an auditmatter;
*
The AG has the
powers that Part II of the Public
Inquiries Act confers on a commission (see Appendix B of this report for
Part II of the Public Inquiries Act);
*
The AG shall
preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his/her attention and
shall not communicate this information except as required by the AG’s reports
to Council; and,
*
The Act
prevails over the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Act whereby:– such an exemption would apply retroactively to
all audits already completed by the OAG.
(Will need Legal interpretation of how this section
applies).
§
The
AG has a duty of confidentiality, and that duty prevails over MFIPPA so that
MFIPPA cannot be used to force disclosure of the information acquired by the OAG
and his staff in the course of his/their duties; and
§
The
Act creates statutory rights for the AG to receive access to and use
certain types of information in the course of his duties which are beyond
what MFIPPA would normally allow.
However, outside of these particular rights granted through the Act,
MFIPPA still applies to the AG in all other respects.
Local Boards, Municipally-Controlled Corporations
and, Grants
Recipients and Transfer Payment Recipients,
Should Council
decide to implement these statutory provisions, the impact on the current
mandate of the OAG will be significant.
By granting the AG specific authority to audit “grant
recipients, local boards,
and municipally-controlled
corporations and grant recipients,” the AG would have
responsibility to conduct compliance, financial and performance audits on
numerous other entities. In
effect, tThis
would be the same mandate that the OAG currently has for all City
departments. Under
the current mandate of the OAG, unless specifically directed by Council to do so,
audits in these areas require a request for an audit by the respective board.
Having
said that, it is worthwhile to further examine each of the three areas as
defined in the Act in order to appreciate who, and which
entities, would be subject to this statutory authority.
(a)
Local
Boards
While
this new authority would enable the AG to audit various “local boards”,
this phrase must be examined by interpreting both the general definition given
it in Subsection 1(1), as well as the express exclusions described in Section
223.1 with respect to the accountability and transparency provisions in Part
V.1 of the Act. Briefly,
Subsection 1(1) defines “local board” to mean:
a municipal service board, transportation
commission, public library board, board of health, police services board,
planning board, or any other board, commission, committee, body or local
authority established or exercising any power under any Act with respect to the
affairs or purposes of one or more municipalities, excluding a school board and
a conservation authority.
Furthermore, the definition section for Part V.1
of the revised Municipal Act, 2001 specifically defines
the term “local board” to expressly exclude the following statutory bodies:
(i)
a
society as defined in Subsection 3(1) of the Child and Family Services Act;
(ii)
a
board of health as defined in Subsection 1(1) of the Health Protection and
Promotion Act;
(iii)
a
committee of management established under the Homes for the Aged and Rest
Homes Act;
(iv)
a
police services board established under the Police Services Act;
(v)
a
board as defined in Section 1 of the Public Libraries Act;
(vi)
a
corporation established in accordance with Section 203 (e.g. the Ottawa
Lands Corp.); and,
(vii)
such
other local boards as may be prescribed (none issued to date).
Despite
these six exclusions, it remains with Council’s purview to
continue its past practice to have the AG audit various aspects of these legislative
bodies (i.e. the police services or the public
library) with the consent of their respective boards. As described in greater detail in the City
Solicitor’s companion report entitled, “Bill 130 - A Review of Ottawa’s
Agencies, Boards, Committees and Commissions”, the legal analysis to determine
whether or not a particular entity is a local board has been undertaken pursuant
to the language in Subsection 1(1) of the Municipal
Act, 2001.
In addition, thesuch
authority to audit “local boards” would allow the OAG
to conduct audits on all of the management boards of Business Improvement Areas
(BIAs) of Ottawa. Found at Appendix “C” is a list of “local
boards” that would be subject to the Auditor General’s jurisdiction based on
the above-noted definition.,
including the BIAs for
*Bank
Street;
*Westboro
Village;
*Sparks
Street;
*Somerset
Heights (Chinatown);
*Somerset
Village;
*Carp
Village;
*Vanier;
*Manotick
Village;
*Preston
Street;
*Byward
Market;
*Downtown
Rideau;
*Barrhaven;
and,
*The
Sparks Street Mall Authority.
(c)(b) Municipally-Controlled
Corporations
With respect Other
recipients of City funding and/or Cityto
“municipally-controlled corporations”,
the revised Act defines these bodies in
the following
manner:
“municipally-controlled corporation”
means a corporation that has 50 percent or more of its issued and outstanding
shares vested in the municipality or that has the appointment of a majority of
its board of directors made or approved by the municipality, but does not
include a local board as defined in Subsection
1(1).
In
Ottawa, the two corporate bodies
which fall within which fall under this category include are:; for example the Ottawa
Police Service,
the Ottawa
Pubic Library,
Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (“OCHC”);
and, Hydro Ottawa, as the City is the sole shareholder in both instances. In the course of further analyzing such
“municipally-controlled corporations” at the mid-term Governance Review, this
list will likely be revised.
(c)
Grant
Recipients
The
specific definition of a “grant recipient”
in Part V. 1 of the Act
means “a person or entity that receives a grant directly or indirectly from the
municipality, a local board or a municipally-controlled corporation.” Although
It should be noted that the Act is silent on its
application to recipients
of various forms of transfer payments that the City provides to individuals and
organizations. Such recipients would
include Ontario Works clients, Child Care subsidy recipients and payments to
local social housing
organization other than OCH. City
resources are currently performing some degree of oversight in these areas and
under the current mandate of the OAG, these existing management oversight
functions are subject to audit by as part of its regular examination of City
operations. However, the
current mandate of the OAG does not extend to examining individuals,
this may occur with respect to some grant
recipients. If
Council were to direct the AG to include grants
recipients,
BIAs, transfer
payment recipients and
other municipally funded organizations, an audit program would have
to be developed that would specify which of these organizations or individuals
would be reviewed on an annual basis. Furthermore, it may be necessary to seek
further details of such “grant recipients” as the broad
statutory definition includes “persons
or entities” that receive grants directly or indirectly from
local boards or municipally-controlled corporations. Appendix “D” contains the 2006 budget and
actual expenditures for various grants.
While further analysis is required to refine this list and identify all
direct and indirect grant recipients, the list provides an indication of the
scope and magnitude of this additional area of responsibility at this point in
time. While Appendix “C” lists the type
of local boards, municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients subject
to this Act, it is staff’s belief that this list be reviewed during the
Mid-term Governance Review to further clarify these entities, as well as
identify any new ones.
FinallyMoreover,
Council should note that the 2008 work plan of the OAG already includes an
audit of the Grants and Contributions program currently managed by the
Community and Protective Services Department.
This audit will offer recommendations on how the existing management
function to oversee
many of these funding arrangements could be enhanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, iIf
Council determines that the authority of the AG should apply to all local
boards, municipally-controlled corporations and grant
recipients as defined by Bill 130 amendments to the Municipal
Act, 2001of
these organizations, there will be implications in terms of the
current audit plan and level of coverage of City operations unless additional
funding is provided to the OAG.
Organizations
receiving funding under the City’s economic development program; including the
Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI), the Ottawa Life Sciences
Council and the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority would also be subject
to an audit by the AG if Council implements the provisions of the Act. Similarly,
all
Conservation Authorities (Rideau Valley, Mississippi Valley and South Nation)
would fall under the new mandate of the OAG.
Finally,
community-based
organizations,
such as the Dovercourt Community Association, which receive annual funding to directly deliver
recreational programming, also would be subject to OAG audits.Recommendation
1
That Council, under the provisions of the new
Municipal Act of Ontario, authorize the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) to
conduct compliance, financial and performance audits of all local boards of the
City of Ottawa, including but not limited to, the
Ottawa Police Service, the Ottawa Pubic Library,
Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and Hydro Ottawa.
Recommendation 2
That Council, under the provisions of the new Municipal
Act
of Ontario,
authorize the Office of the Auditor General to conduct compliance and financial
audits of all grant recipients transfer
payment recipients and municipally-controlled organizations on an
annual sample basis.
Other OAG Mandate - Proposed
Amendments
In discussing potential changes to the mandate and authority of the
City’s OAG function, it is prudent for Council to consider other relevant
issues not directly tied to the new
revised Act
but which affect the future context within which the OAG will operate. To-date, the process established by the
current AG has, for the most part, been working well. The level of independent scrutiny provided by the AG function has
been significantly higher than any of the former municipalities had in place
prior to amalgamation and as such it has been a learning process for all
parties involved. There is an
opportunity now to refine certain aspects of the AG process with the goal of
making them more efficient,
and effective, accountable
and transparent in the future.
These opportunities are described below along with any
additional recommendations where changes to
the current approach are proposed.
Auditor General Term Limits
Council has
established that the AG position will operate under a non-renewable seven-year
term. The
underlying rationale for this seven-year
term was two, full three-year
terms of council plus one
year. However,
the recent legislative amendment which extended council terms to four years is
no longer correctly reflected
in the above-noted calculation.
With the creation of the existing OAG function,
the current AG is operating under a seven-year term with a two-year extension
to be granted upon: (1) establishing the OAG; (2) developing the initial audit
plan; and (3) completion of the initial audit
plan. As these three requirements have
now been satisfied, Council is now
currently in a position to grant the two-year
extension to thise
current term.
By way of comparison, the City of Toronto has recently revised the term
of its AG to ten years with the option for Council to extend this an additional
ten years. Similarly,
tThe AG
Auditor General
of Canada and of Ontario both operate under a non-renewable,
ten-year term.
It is generally acknowledged that the key advantage of a term limit on a
position such as the AG is that it enables and motivates the incumbent to
operate in as independent and unbiased a way as possible during
his/her term without being influenced by the potential for future
employment. Conversely,
tThe disadvantage of
course is that a term limit does
tends to reduce the pool of available candidates
for the position when it comes time to find a new AG. In our view, a non-renewable term limit of some sort is clearly
an appropriate characteristic of this type of position. However, the current seven-year
non-renewable limit at the City of Ottawa is too restrictive. . It is proposed that the next AG for
the City have a non-renewable ten-year term which would therefore cover more
than two full terms of Council.
Recommendation
32
That
Council grant the required two-year extension to the current term of the
Auditor General bringing it to
31 December, 2013.
Recommendation
43
That
Council recommend that a
future Council consider that the term
of the next Auditor
General Council
be set
at ten-years non-renewable.
Reporting Protocol and the Audit Committee
OAG Annual Report. Since the inception of the AG function at
the City of Ottawa there have been two Annual Reports issued. On each occasion, there has been some
confusion and disagreement regarding the protocol for releasing, presenting and
discussing this Annual R
report. The current by-law
governing the OAG states that the AG will report to Council through the
appropriate Standing Committee: By-law No. 2005-84, as amended, with respect to
the OAG is found at Appendix E. Despite
this approach, the wish of most Councillors has been to have the AG report
directly to Council with the Annual Report placed on the Corporate
Services agenda of the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee afterwards to allow for public delegations.
In discussing the reporting protocol for the OAG, it is important to
raise the issue of the need for an Audit Committee at the City of Ottawa. Council had decided at the outset of its
current term not to create such a Standing Committee. However, since
during that time,
the ad hoc Council Audit Working Group (CAWG)
has been createdcontinued
to work with management on its implementation of audit recommendations. While the CAWG has been helpful in dealing
with recommendations where management is in disagreement with the AG, no formal
terms of reference for the group exists and it does not have the mandate or
authority of a formal Audit Committee.
The majority of other organizations with an audit function, both in the
public- and private -sector, have such a committee. It is felt that the creation
establishment of an Audit Committee at the
City is an appropriate
counterbalance with respect to transparency and accountability at this pointshould
Council provide the AG with the additional statutory powers discussed earlier
in this report. This Standing
Committee could be imbued with the hybrid authority to
address matters arising from the City’s
external auditor (i.e. under Section 296 of the Municipal Act, 2001),
as well as the OAG. This Committee would
be responsible for overseeing implementation of OAG recommendations,
arbitrating on any disagreements regarding these recommendations and reviewing
the results of the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements. However, Thewhile
the AG would appear at the Audit Committee as requested, however the direct reporting
relationship of the OAG to City Council as a whole would be maintained.
The proposed protocol for the release and discussion of the AG’s Annual
Report is presented below. It largely
reflects the process that occurred for the 2006 Annual Report with the
inclusion of an Audit Committee. :
1.
Notice of Tabling of the AG’s Annual Report with Council;
2. Tabling at
following meeting of Council meeting and initial questions;
a) Release of the
Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of tabling,
b) Concurrent with
the release to the media, the AG and senior staff will conduct a briefing session,
open to the media and the public, on the Annual Report for all Councillors,
c) Following
tabling of the report, the AG and staff are available to answer any further
questions from Council or from the media;
3. Referral of the
Annual Report to the Audit
appropriate Standing Committee to allow for
public delegations only;
4. Referral of the
report resulting from the Audit
Standing Committee to the subsequent Council
meeting where the Auditor General will be available for final questions; and,
5. Referral to the
Auditappropriate Committee for
on-going monitoring.
Should Council choose
decide not to approve
the creation ofestablish an Audit Committee, the protocol
would be revised to utilize the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee for public delegations and the CAWG for ongoing monitoring.
Fraud and Waste Hotline Reports. As indicated in the 2006 Annual Report of the AG, the existing Fraud and
Waste Hotline (Hotline) at the City is scheduled for evaluation during 2008 in
time for the 2009 budget deliberations.
Once this evaluation is completed the AG will present recommendations to
Council regarding the future of the Hotline, including whether it should be
continued. During 2006, it was
established, based on the advice of Legal Services
with respect to various privacy concerns and the wishes of the Council
Audit Working Group, that audit reports arising from the Hotline would be
provided only to managers directly involved in the case, to the Chair of the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and to
the City Manager. Since that time, some
Councillors have expressed their dissatisfaction with this
this rather
restrictive protocol.
In light of these concerns, a new reporting protocol is proposed here for any confidential audit
report. It is important to note that
such reports often deal with sensitive and at times personal information. The release of such information publicly is could
constitute a violation of protection
of personal privacy legislation and subject to censure
penalties under this legislation. As such, should an audit result in a report
of a confidential nature (e.g. as a result of a call to the Fraud and Waste
Hotline), the audit report will be provided to all
Members of Council at an in
camera session
of Council as part of the presentation of the AG’s Annual Report for that
year. Should Council approve the
recommended reporting protocol for confidential reports, those reports
completed during 2006 which were not presented to Council will be provided as
part of the 2007 Annual Report.
Recommendation
4
That
Council consider the
creation of an Audit Committee as a Standing Committee of Council
in the mid-term Governance Review.
Recommendation
5
That
the reporting protocol for the Annual Report be established as follows:
1. Notice
of Tabling of Annual Report with Council;
2.
Tabling
at following meeting of Council meeting and initial questions;
a.
Release
of the Annual Report to the media will occur under embargo on the morning of
tabling,
b.
Concurrent
with the release to the media,
the AG and senior staff will provide a briefing session, open
to the media and the public, on the
Annual Report for all Councillors,
c.
Following
tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer any
further questions from Council
or the media;
3.
Referral
of the Annual Report to the Audit Committee to allow for public delegations
only;
4.
Referral
of the report resulting from the Audit Committee to
subsequent Council meeting where the Auditor General will be available for
final questions;
and,
5.
Referral
to the Audit Committee for on-going monitoring.
Recommendation
6
That Council approve
that for any audit
of a confidential nature being conducted by the Auditor General (e.g.
as a
result of a Fraud and Waste Hotline call), the
resulting audit
report be provided to Council at an in
camera
session coinciding with the release of the Auditor General’s Annual Report.
Recommendation
7
That Council direct that those audit reports completed during 2006 which
were not presented to Council be provided as part of the 2007 Annual Report in
accordance with the reporting protocol for confidential reports outlined in
Recommendation 6.
Recommendation
5
That
Council approve the creation of an Audit Committee as a Standing Committee of
Council.
Recommendation
6
That
the reporting protocol for the Annual Report be established as follows:
1.Notice
of Tabling of Annual Report with Council;
1.Tabling
at following meeting of Council meeting and initial questions;
a.Release
of the Annual Report to the media will occur
under embargo on the morning of tabling,
a.Concurrent
with the release to the media, the AG and senior staff will provide a briefing
on the Annual Report for all Councillors,
a.Following
tabling of the report, the AG and senior staff will be available to answer
any further questions from Council or the media;
1.Referral
of the Annual Report to the Audit Committee to allow for public delegations
only;
1.Referral
of the report resulting from the Audit Committee
to
subsequent Council meeting where the Auditor General will be available for
final questions; and,
1.Referral
to the Audit Committee for on-going monitoring.
Recommendation
7
That,
should a Fraud and Waste Hotline call result in an audit of a confidential
nature being conducted by the Auditor General, the resulting audit report be
provided to Council at an in camera session coinciding with the release of the
Auditor General’s Annual Report.
Auditing the Auditor
At the present time, there is no clear process for
the OAG to be audited. In
contrast, tThe
Cities
and Towns Act of the Province of Quebec requires that a
separate audit report on the financial accounts of the OAG be provided as part
of the annual external audit of a city’s financial statement. It
is suggested that sSuch
an approach provides a level of oversight on the AG function not presently in
place at the City of Ottawa.
Accordingly, it is proposed that the City adopt a similar practice.
Recommendation
88
That
Council direct the inclusion of a separate audit report of the financial accounts of
the OAG within the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements.
Auditor
General Remuneration
The City of Ottawa created the OAG on the basis of a report prepared for
Council in 2004 by Denis Desautel,
the former Auditor General of Canada.
In his report, Mr. Desautel recommended that the remuneration of the AG
match that of the Deputy City Manager position. Currently, remuneration is below that level. In addition, at present there is no process
to consider increases to remuneration within the pay band established for the
AG position.
With the increased scope and additional statutory
responsibilities of the position outlined in this report, it is
recommended that the remuneration be set at the level originally recommended to
Council. In addition, since the AG
position is not governed by any provisions for increasing the salary-level
based on performance or merit, it is recommended that progression within the
pay-band for the position be set at an annual rate of 5%, subject to the AG successfully
completing the annual audit plan.
Recommendation
99
That
Council approve an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General
position, in accordance with the salary scale established
foreffective
in 2008, so that it matches that of the Deputy City Manager position and
that progression within the pay-band for the position be set at an annual rate
of 5%, subject to the AG successfully completing the annual audit plan.
OAG Work Plan Implications
The increased mandate arising from the recommendations contained in this
report will require changes to the way in which the OAG’s annual audit plan is
developed. Approximately 20 audits per
year are currently being conducted by the OAG.
In the future, these audits would be allocated across the larger audit
universe which would include all City departments, local boards,
municipally-controlled corporations and
grants recipients
and transfer payment recipients.
CONSULTATION
There has been no public consultation on this item. The Auditor General conducted meetings with
the Mayor, Councillors and senior management prior to the preparation of this
report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are not financial implications of the
recommendations contained in this report.
Appendix A - Excerpt from the New
revised Municipal
Act, 2001 regarding the Auditor
General Function
Appendix B - Part II of the Public Inquiries Act
Appendix C - List of Local Boards, Municipally Controlled Corporations and Grant Recipients
Appendix D - 2006 Grants Payments
Appendix E - By-law No. 2005 - 84 A by-law of the City of Ottawa
to establish the position and duties of the Auditor General of the City of
Ottawa, as amended by By-law 2006-8
Upon approval by Council, the Office of the Auditor General will
undertake the implementation of the revised mandate contained herein beginning
in 2008.
Legal Services will update the by-law governing the Office of the
Auditor General to reflect any changes approved by Council and further examine
those local boards, municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients
that may be subject to the Auditor General’s statutory authority in the
Mid-term Governance Review.
APPENDIX A
Excerpt from the Newrevised Municipal
Act, 2001 regarding the Auditor
General Function
Section 223.1
Definitions
In this Part,
“code of conduct” means a code of conduct described in section 223.2; (“code de déontologie”)
“grant recipient” means a person or entity that receives a grant directly or indirectly from the municipality, a local board or a municipally-controlled corporation; (“bénéficiaire d’une subvention”)
“local board” means a local board other than,
(a) a society as defined in subsection 3 (1) of the Child and Family Services Act,
(b) a board of health as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act,
(c) a committee of management established under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act,
(d) a police services board established under the Police Services Act,
(e) a board as defined in section 1 of the Public Libraries Act,
(f) a corporation established in accordance with section 203,
(g) such other local boards as may be prescribed; (“conseil local”)
“municipally-controlled corporation” means a corporation that has 50 per cent or more of its issued and outstanding shares vested in the municipality or that has the appointment of a majority of its board of directors made or approved by the municipality, but does not include a local board as defined in subsection 1 (1); (“société contrôlée par la municipalité”)
“public office holder” means,
(a) a member of the municipal council and any person on his or her staff,
(b) an officer or employee of the municipality,
(c) a member of a local board of the municipality and any person on his or her staff,
(d) an officer, director or employee of a local board of the municipality, and
(e) such other persons as may be determined by the municipality who are appointed to any office or body by the municipality or by a local board of the municipality. (“titulaire d’une charge publique”) 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Auditor General
223.19
(1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections
authorize the municipality to appoint an Auditor General who reports to council
and is responsible for assisting the council in holding itself and its
administrators accountable for the quality of stewardship over public funds and
for achievement of value for money in municipal operations. 2006, c. 32, Sched.
A, s. 98.
Exceptions
(2)
Despite subsection (1), the responsibilities of the Auditor General shall
not include the matters described in clauses 296 (1) (a) and (b) for which the
municipal auditor is responsible. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Powers and duties
(3)
Subject to this Part, in carrying out his or her responsibilities, the
Auditor General may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties as may be
assigned to him or her by the municipality in respect of the municipality, its
local boards and such municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients
as the municipality may specify. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Grant recipients
(4)
The authority of the Auditor General to exercise powers and perform duties
under this Part in relation to a grant recipient applies only in respect of
grants received by the grant recipient directly or indirectly from the
municipality, a local board or a municipally-controlled corporation after the
date on which this section comes into force. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Delegation
(5)
The Auditor General may delegate in writing to any person, other than a
member of council, any of the Auditor General's powers and duties under this
Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Same
(6)
The Auditor General may continue to exercise the delegated powers and
duties, despite the delegation. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Status
(7)
The Auditor General is not required to be a municipal employee. 2006, c.
32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Duty to furnish information
223.20
(1) The municipality, its local boards and the
municipally-controlled corporations and grant recipients referred to in
subsection 223.19 (3) shall give the Auditor General such information regarding
their powers, duties, activities, organization, financial transactions and
methods of business as the Auditor General believes to be necessary to perform
his or her duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Access to records
(2)
The Auditor General is entitled to have free access to all books, accounts,
financial records, electronic data processing records, reports, files and all
other papers, things or property belonging to or used by the municipality, the
local board, the municipally-controlled corporation or the grant recipient, as
the case may be, that the Auditor General believes to be necessary to perform
his or her duties under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
No waiver of privilege
(3)
A disclosure to the Auditor General under subsection (1) or (2) does not
constitute a waiver of solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege or
settlement privilege. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Powers re examination
223.21
(1) The Auditor General may examine any person on oath on any
matter pertinent to an audit or examination under this Part. 2006, c. 32,
Sched. A, s. 98.
Same
(2)
For the purpose of an examination, the Auditor General has the powers that
Part II of the Public Inquiries Act confers on a commission, and that
Part applies to the examination as if it were an inquiry under that Act. 2006,
c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Duty of confidentiality
223.22
(1) The Auditor General and every person acting under the
instructions of the Auditor General shall preserve secrecy with respect to all
matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties
under this Part. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Same
(2)
Subject to subsection (3), the persons required to preserve secrecy under
subsection (1) shall not communicate information to another person in respect
of any matter described in subsection (1) except as may be required,
(a) in connection with the administration of this Part, including reports
made by the Auditor General, or with any proceedings under this Part; or
(b) under the Criminal Code (Canada). 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s.
98.
Same
(3)
A person required to preserve secrecy under subsection (1) shall not
disclose any information or document disclosed to the Auditor General under
section 223.20 that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, litigation
privilege or settlement privilege unless the person has the consent of each
holder of the privilege. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Section prevails
(4)
This section prevails over the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act . 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Testimony
223.23
Neither the Auditor General nor any person acting under the
instructions of the Auditor General is a competent or compellable witness in a
civil proceeding in connection with anything done under this Part. 2006, c. 32,
Sched. A, s. 98.
Regulations
223.24
The Minister may make regulations prescribing local boards for the
purposes of the definition of "local board" in section 223.1. 2006,
c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC INQUIRIES
ACT
PART II
Power to summon witnesses, papers, etc.
7. (1) A commission may require any
person by summons,
(a) to give evidence on oath or affirmation at an inquiry; or
(b) to produce in evidence at an inquiry such documents and things as
the commission may specify,
relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry and not
inadmissible in evidence at the inquiry under section 11. R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.41, s. 7 (1).
Form and service of summons
(2) A summons issued under subsection (1) shall be
in Form 1 and shall be served personally on the person summoned and he or she
shall be paid at the time of service the like fees and allowances for
attendance as a witness before the commission as are paid for the attendance of
a witness summoned to attend before the Superior Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.41, s. 7 (2); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C,
s. 1 (1).
Stated case for contempt for failure to attend
hearing, etc.
8.Where
any person without lawful excuse,
(a) on being duly summoned under section 7 as a witness at an inquiry,
makes default in attending at the inquiry; or
(b) being in attendance as a witness at an inquiry, refuses to take an
oath or to make an affirmation legally required by the commission to be taken
or made, or to produce any document or thing in his or her power or control
legally required by the commission to be produced to it, or to answer any
question to which the commission may legally require an answer; or
(c) does any other thing that would, if the commission had been a court
of law having power to commit for contempt, have been contempt of that court,
the commission may state a case to the Divisional
Court setting out the facts and that court may, on the application of the
commission or of the Attorney General, inquire into the matter and, after
hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of that person
and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defense, punish or take
steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he or she had been
guilty of contempt of the court. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.41, s. 8.
Protection of witnesses
9.(1)A witness at an inquiry shall be deemed to have objected
to answer any question asked him or her upon the ground that his or her answer
may tend to criminate the witness or may tend to establish his or her liability
to civil proceedings at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and no
answer given by a witness at an inquiry shall be used or be receivable in
evidence against him or her in any trial or other proceedings against him or
her thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in giving such
evidence. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.41, s. 9 (1).
Right to object
(2)A witness shall be informed by the commission of his or
her right to object to answer any question under section 5 of the Canada
Evidence Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.41, s. 9 (2).
No discipline of employees
9.1 (1) No adverse employment action shall
be taken against any employee of any person because the employee, acting in
good faith, has made representations as a party or has disclosed information
either in evidence or otherwise to a commission under this Act or to the staff
of a commission. 2000, c. 14, s. 1.
Offence
(2) Any person who contrary to subsection (1)
takes adverse employment action against an employee is guilty of an offence and
on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. 2000, c. 14,
s. 1.
Application
(3) This section applies despite any other Act and
the oath of office of a Crown employee is not breached where information is
disclosed as described in subsection (1). 2000, c. 14, s. 1.
Effective date
(4) This section applies to representations made,
and information disclosed, on or after June 12, 2000. 2000, c. 14,
s. 1.
Unsworn evidence admissible
10.A
commission may admit at an inquiry evidence not given under oath or
affirmation. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.41, s. 10.
Privilege
11.Nothing
is admissible in evidence at an inquiry that would be inadmissible in a court
by reason of any privilege under the law of evidence. R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.41, s. 11.
Release of documents
12.(1)Documents and things produced in evidence at an inquiry
shall, upon request of the person who produced them or the person entitled
thereto, be released to the person by the commission within a reasonable time.
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.41, s. 12 (1).
Photocopies of documents
(2)Where a document has been produced in evidence before a
commission, the commission may or the person producing it may with the leave of
the commission, cause the document to be photocopied and the photocopy may be
filed in evidence in the place of the document produced, and a copy of a
document produced in evidence, certified to be a true copy thereof by the
commission, is admissible in evidence in proceedings in which the document
produced is admissible, as evidence of the document produced. R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.41, s. 12 (2).
Power to administer oaths and require evidence under
oath
13.A
commission has power to administer oaths and affirmations for the purpose of an
inquiry and may require evidence before it to be given under oath or
affirmation. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.41, s. 13.
Powers of each of two or more commissioners
14.Where
two or more persons are appointed to make an inquiry, any one of them may
exercise the powers conferred by section 7, 12 or 13. R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.41, s. 14.
APPENDIX C
Ø City of Ottawa Superannuation Fund
Ø Cumberland Village Heritage Museum Board
Ø Nepean Museum Board
Ø Ottawa Municipal Campsite Authority
Ø Pineview Municipal Golf Club Board of Management
Ø CARP Airport Authority (formerly the West Carleton Airport Authority)
Ø Crime Prevention Ottawa
Ø Property Standards Committee
Ø Business Improvement Areas
o Bank Street B.I.A.
o Barrhaven BIA
o Byward Market B.I.A.
o Carp Village B.I.A.
o Heart of Orleans B.I.A.
o Manotick B.I.A.
o Preston Street B.I.A.
o Downtown Rideau Improvement Area B.I.A.
o Somerset Chinatown B.I.A.
o Somerset Village B.I.A.
o Sparks Street Mall Authority / Sparks Street Mall B.I.A.
o Vanier B.I.A.
o Westboro B.I.A.
Ø
Hydro Ottawa
Ø
Ottawa Community Housing Corporation
As an example, Community Funding provides renewable and project funding to health, recreation and social services agencies and Cultural Funding provides Service Agreements, 3 year, annual, and project funding to non-profit cultural groups for local arts, festival and heritage programs, facility operations, and services.
2006
Grants Payments APPENDIX D
|
|
Actual |
Budget |
Actual |
Budget |
||
|
Departmental |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Councillors |
|
|
95,448 |
8,046 |
||
|
City
Manager's Office |
|
|
217,937 |
75,000 |
||
|
Community
and Protective Services: |
|
23,224,213 |
24,292,961 |
|||
|
|
Cultural
Services |
17,319,852 |
19,171,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
DCM |
265,000 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Housing |
4,737,850 |
4438582 |
|
|
|
|
|
Parks & Recreation |
629,506 |
653666 |
|
|
|
|
|
Public
Health |
272,005 |
29,000 |
|
|
|
|
Business
Transformation Services |
|
|
2,341,470 |
2,269,316 |
||
|
Planning,
Transit and the Environment: |
|
2,737,097 |
2,143,929 |
|||
|
|
DCM |
1,680 |
42,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Economic
Dev. |
2,530,729 |
1,901,929 |
|
|
|
|
|
Planning & Infra.
Approval |
147,162 |
150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Env. Infra. |
57,526 |
50,000 |
|
|
|
|
Public Works and Services: |
|
579,907 |
658,453 |
|||
|
|
Infrastructure |
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utility |
29,000 |
86,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic |
550,867 |
571,803 |
|
|
|
|
Total Departmental |
|
|
29,196,072 |
29,447,705 |
||
|
Business Improvement Areas |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bank
St |
0 |
531,978 |
|
|
||
|
Westboro
Village |
5,127 |
3,000 |
|
|
||
|
Sparks
St |
0 |
38,877 |
|
|
||
|
Somerset
Village |
0 |
11,762 |
|
|
||
|
Somerset/
China |
138,586 |
0 |
|
|
||
|
Preston
St |
5,680 |
142,834 |
|
|
||
|
Byward
Market |
100 |
176,600 |
|
|
||
|
Rideau |
1,012 |
0 |
|
|
||
|
Sparks
Mall Authority |
0 |
4,254 |
|
|
||
|
Carp |
0 |
3,296 |
|
|
||
|
Manotick |
0 |
13,489 |
|
|
||
|
Vanier |
1,280 |
30,893 |
|
|
||
|
Barrhaven |
0 |
4,000 |
|
|
||
|
Total BIA |
|
|
151,785 |
960,983 |
||
|
Conservation Authorities |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mississippi
Valley |
1,094,133 |
1,094,133 |
|
|
||
|
Rideau
Valley |
3,529,114 |
3,529,114 |
|
|
||
|
South
Nation River |
1,532,900 |
1,532,900 |
|
|
||
|
Total Conservation
Authorities |
|
|
6,156,147 |
6,156,147 |
||
|
Grand Total |
|
|
35,504,004 |
36,564,835 |
||
APPENDIX E
BY-LAW NO. 2005 - 84 as amended by By-law No. 2006-8
A by-law of the City of Ottawa to establish the position
and duties of the Auditor General of the City of Ottawa.
The Council of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows:
DEFINITIONS
1. In
this by-law,
“Auditor General” means the Auditor General of
the City of Ottawa.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE POSITION OF AUDITOR GENERAL
2. The
position of Auditor General is hereby established with the duties and functions
as set out in this by-law or any other by-law or provincial statute that makes
reference to the Auditor General.
APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR GENERAL
3. (1)
City Council shall by by-law, appoint a person to the position of Auditor
General for a non-renewable term of seven (7) years and specify the terms and
conditions of such appointment.
(2)
The current Auditor General shall hold office until the expiry of his current
term.
(3) The appointment of a person to the position
of Auditor General may be made, suspended or revoked only by a two-thirds
majority vote of Council.
4) The Auditor General must be designated in
Ontario as a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant or a
certified management accountant.
4. The
Auditor General is independent of the City administration.
5. The Auditor General shall report to
Council through the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee.
RESPONSIBILITIES
6. (1) The Auditor General shall be
responsible for carrying out financial (excluding attest), compliance and
performance audits of all programs, activities and functions of all City
departments, agencies, boards and commissions and corporations and the offices
of the Mayor and Members of Council.
(2)
At the request of Council or a board of directors, the Auditor General may
conduct financial (excluding attest), compliance and performance audits of
autonomous organizations that have an agreement with the City that contains
provisions for an audit by the City.
(3)
At the request of Council or a board of directors, the Auditor General may also
conduct financial (excluding attest), compliance and performance audits of
boards, commissions or corporations where the City holds more than 50% of the
shares or appoints more than 50% of the members of the board.
(4)
Audits shall be conducted at such time and to the extent that the Auditor
General considers appropriate.
(5) The Auditor General shall not call into
question or review the merits of the policies and objectives of Council.
(6) The Auditor General, in consultation with
the City Solicitor, shall be responsible for the investigation of any suspected
acts of fraud, misappropriation or other similar irregularity in accordance
with the Corporate Policy on Fraud and Other Similar Irregularities as approved
by City Council.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
7. The
Office of the Auditor General shall have unrestricted access to all personnel,
records, property, functions, policies, procedures, processes and systems
necessary to the conduct of audits.
ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN
8. (1)
The Auditor General shall submit an annual audit plan for the next following
year to Council for information by December 31st of each year.
(2)
The Auditor General may, at his or her discretion, prepare a longer term audit
plan for submission to Council.
(3)
No deletions or amendments to the annual audit plan shall be made except by the
Auditor General.
(4)
Despite subsection (3) the Auditor General may, if requested by Council or a
board of directors audit and report on additional matters.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
9. (1)
The Auditor General is authorized to establish the Office of the Auditor
General including a managerial hierarchy and administrative policies and
procedures.
(2)
The Auditor General is authorized to appoint, promote, demote, suspend and
dismiss, subject to any personnel policies adopted by Council, all employees of
the Office of the Auditor General.
(3)
The Auditor General is authorized to review the performance of personnel within
the Office of the Auditor General subject to any personnel policies applicable
to employees of the City.
(4)
The Auditor General is authorized to retain the services of any individual or
corporation for purposes related to the operation of the Office of the Auditor
General and execute all agreements and contracts required for the provision of
such services subject to the provisions of the City’s Purchasing By-law.
ANNUAL BUDGET
10. (1) The annual budget of the Office of the Auditor General
shall be equal to or greater than 0.08% of the annual operating budget
of the City.
(2)
Requests by Council or a board of directors pursuant to subsection 8(4) shall
be subject to the provision of appropriate funding.
REPORTING
11. (1) On or before June 30th of each year, the Auditor General shall submit an annual
report that summarizes the audits completed in the previous calendar year to
Council for information.
(2)
The requirement in subsection (1) for the Auditor General to submit an annual
report to Council shall commence on or before June 30, 2006.
(3)
The Auditor General may, at his or her discretion, report on a more frequent
basis to Council.
IMMUNITY
12. (1) No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced
against the Auditor General or an employee or agent of the Auditor General for
any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty
or authority under this by-law or for any alleged neglect or default in the
performance in good faith of the duty or authority.
(2)
Notwithstanding any general laws neither the Auditor General nor his or her
staff may be compelled, without benefit of a subpoena, to give testimony
relating to information obtained in the performance of their duties.
ENACTED AND PASSED this 23rd day of February, 2005.
CITY CLERK MAYOR
|
Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee Report
17 28
november 2007 |
|
Comité des services
organisationnels et du développement économique rapport 17 le 28 novembre 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
Extract of draft Minutes 18 19
november 2007 |
|
Extrait de l’ébauche du
procès-verbal 18 – le 19 novembre 2007 |
OFFICE
OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - BILL
130 - REVISED MANDATE
BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL - PROJET DE LOI 130 - MANDAT RÉVISÉ
ACS2007-OAG-0001 city-wide / À
l’Échelle de la ville
Councillor McRae asked that Committee deal with this item together with CSED Report 17, Item 6 (Bill 130 - A Review of Ottawa's Agencies, Boards, Committees and Commissions) together, as they had many common elements.
Councillor McRae wanted to congratulate and thank staff for these reports. She remarked that she had been expressing concerns about some of the issues raised in these reports with respect to accountability. She drew Committee’s attention to Appendix D, on page 22 of the agenda package, which defined and described current local boards. She noted that a lot of money was being granted to many organizations, which may not be as readily reviewable as they would be the funds were given to a local board. She inquired as to the Auditor General’s intentions with respect to looking at some of these grant monies for next year. Mr. A. Lalonde, Auditor General, noted that he could not review all of them. He indicated his intention was to select and work on a sample of them, some large, some small and in various areas. Furthermore, he explained that in addition to looking at how they managed money, he would be reviewing the governance aspect of the organizations. He referenced the differences types and sizes of organizations, indicated he did not expect that they would all have the same kind of governance structure and that therefore, he would use some common sense in the approach. However, in his opinion, everything was on the table. In closing, he remarked that he would continue to meet with members of Council to get their input on what should be audited.
Councillor McRae noted that members of Council had been hearing complaints with respect to governance issues with some organizations. She wondered, in the wake of Bill 130, if staff would be prepared to go out to the organizations receiving large grants from the City and explain to them the implications of Bill 130 and of a review by the Auditor General. Mr. R. O’Connor, City Solicitor, indicated staff would be pleased to do this on whatever basis Council requested. He advised staff had already met with the City’s Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) to inform them of the requirements, as local boards, under the new legislation. He explained they had been working with the BIAs with respect to procedure by-laws and policies they would be required to enact. He indicated they would be happy to do the same with grant recipients and any other groups.
Councillor McRae indicated she had been surprised to learn that, under the new legislation, the City could be held responsible for any rules and regulations not followed by local boards. Mr. O’Connor confirmed this, adding that under Bill 130, the municipality holds the ultimate responsibility with regards to governance issues, accountability and transparency issues, as well as financial ramifications.
Responding to a question from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to financial implications, Mr. Lalonde explained that on an annual basis, his office was doing 20 to 25 just on the City and that, if they had an increased mandate with respect to local boards and organizations, there would be less audits on the City’s activities. He confirmed that he would be staying with the current budget of 0.08%.
In response to further questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Lalonde confirmed that he would continue to take his direction from Council and that he would also continue to meet with individual members of Council.
With respect to the City’s self-insured policy, Mayor O’Brien wondered if the Auditor General has spent any time reviewing the assets that had fallen into the lost category. Mr. Lalonde indicated he had not look at this.
Councillor Deans referenced recommendation 4 of the report. She indicated she felt it made more sense for the audit committee to be a sub-committee of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) rather than a standing committee of Council, and she wondered as to the rationale behind the recommendation. Mr. O’Connor explained part of the rationale related to the way the Auditor General’s by-law was currently drafted. He reference various previous permutations as well as the current structure, which reported through the CSEDC. However, he assured Committee that various options would be explored and a recommendation would be brought forward next year as part of the mid-term governance review.
Councillor Deans noted that at the beginning of this term of Council, there was a decision made to reduce the number of Standing Committees. Therefore, she did not believe Council would want to start moving in the opposite direction. She indicated she would be more comfortable with a Sub-committee of the CSEDC and the elimination of the current working group. She wondered if this amended required a motion. Mr. O’Connor indicated a motion was not necessary and that staff would be all the options.
Following a further exchange on this issue, Councillor Deans moved that the recommendation 4 of the report be amended, which Committee voted to approve.
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
That recommendation 4
of the report be amended to “consider the creation of an Audit Committee as a
Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee”.
CARRIED
Councillor Hume referenced the rationale provided for recommendation 9. He indicated he had not quarrel with the explanation related to added responsibilities. However, he noted that the report talked about the recommendations contained in the 2004 Desautel report and he wondered why the Auditor General had not tested the market to bring Committee and Council some comparators with respect to other positions were across the country. Mr. Lalonde explained that when he wrote the report, it was based on the Desautel recommendations. However, he indicated he could provide comparator information within the next week.
Councillor Hume felt this would be helpful as it would provide some level of comfort that what Council was approving related to the market.
Councillor McRae referenced a discussion she had with the Auditor General prior to the start of the meeting with respect to the auditing of his accounts and expenses and she asked him to share this information with Committee. Mr. Lalonde indicated recommendation 8 of the report was taken from the Cities and Towns Act of the Province of Quebec. He explained that he thought it would be beneficial to include in this report as it would provide a level of oversight and accountability not presently in place. More importantly, he submitted that the tabling of these reports would give Council an opportunity to ask questions regarding his office.
Councillor McRae felt this showed strong, transparent, and open willingness on the part of the Auditor General to be thoroughly scrutinized and raised to the same standards that he, himself, would expect of other departments in the Corporation.
Responding to a question from Councillor Jellet with respect to recommendation 3, Mr. Lalonde indicated the Desautel report had recommended a seven (7) year term of the Auditor General, based on Council’s own three (3) year terms. However, now that Council’s terms had increased to four (4) years, he felt the Auditor General’s term should also be increased to ensure the Auditor General be in place for two (2) terms of Council.
Councillor Jellet referenced recommendation 9 and the recommendations contained in the 2003 Desautel report. He recalled that, at the time, Council had rejected those recommendations. He wondered if the City Solicitor remember the reasons. Mr. O’Connor confirmed that the Council of the time had rejected the Desautel recommendations with respect to remuneration, though he could not recall the reasoning.
In light of Mr. Lalonde’s commitment to bring forward market comparators, Councillor Jellet felt it would be premature for Committee to deal with recommendation 9. Therefore, he recommended it be referred to Council for its consideration, by which time members would have received the additional information from the Auditor General.
Councillor El-Chantiry referenced page 6 of the report and requested clarification with respect to the Auditor General’s confidentiality duty. Mr. O’Connor explained that by making Mr. Lalonde the statutory Auditor General for the City of Ottawa, he would be exempt from requests made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Under this legislation, he also could not be compelled as a witness in a civil litigation matter. Essentially, this means one cannot go compel information he was not prepared to disclose publicly. Having said that, he indicated the Auditor General would not be exempt from the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in terms of the way he was running his office or his attendance at a conference.
With all the talk about accountability and transparency, Councillor El-Chantiry was surprised to learn that, if there was a whistle blower, Council would not be able to find out the truth about the source or basis of an investigation. He noted the regularity of disputes over Auditor General recommendations and maintained that, as a decision-making body, Council could not make a decision if it did not have all the information.
Mr. O’Connor indicated most integrity positions at the Provincial and Federal government had this type of legislative protection. Therefore, this was a common practice.
Mr. Lalonde discussed the current practice at the City in terms of resolving disputes between his office and management with respect audit recommendations in that both sides were clearly laid out in the audit report and both sides met with the Council Audit Working Group.
Responding to questions from Councillor Desroches with respect to his mandate, Mr. Lalonde assured Committee that the way in which he conducted his business would not change. He would continue to follow his audit plan and initiate audits based on discussion with members of Council and/or management. The only difference related to scope in that his office’s workload would henceforth include local boards, municipally controlled corporations and grant recipients.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett
That consideration of
recommendation 9 of the report be referred to Council.
CARRIED
Committee then voted on the report as amended.
That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the changes to the mandate of
the Office of the Auditor General by deeming the City's current Auditor General
to be the statutory auditor general for the purposes of Part V.1 of the
Municipal Act, 2001, as amended.
2. Grant the required two-year extension
to the current term of the Auditor General, bringing it to 31 December 2013.
3. Recommend that a future Council
consider that the term of the next Auditor General be set at ten-years
non-renewable.
4. Consider the creation of an Audit
Committee as a Sub-Committee of Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee in the mid-term Governance Review.
5. Approve that the reporting protocol for
the Annual Report be as follows:
a) Notice of Tabling of Annual Report with
Council;
b) Tabling at following meeting of Council and
initial questions;
i. Release of the Annual Report to the media
will occur under embargo on the morning of tabling,
ii. Concurrent with the release to the media, the
AG and senior staff will provide a briefing session, open to the media and the
public, on the Annual Report for all Councillors,
iii. Following tabling of the report, the AG and
senior staff will be available to answer any further questions from Council or
the media;
c) Referral of the Annual Report to the
appropriate Standing Committee to allow for public delegations only;
d) Referral of the report resulting from the
Standing Committee to subsequent Council meeting where the Auditor General will
be available for final questions; and,
e) Referral to the appropriate Committee for
on-going monitoring.
6. Approve that, for any audit of a
confidential nature being conducted by the Auditor General (e.g. as a result of
a Fraud and Waste Hotline call), the resulting audit report be provided to
Council at an in camera session coinciding with the release of the Auditor
General's Annual Report.
7. Direct that those audit reports
completed during 2006 which were not presented to Council be provided as part
of the 2007 Annual Report in accordance with the reporting protocol for
confidential reports outlined in Recommendation 6.
8. Direct the inclusion of a separate
audit report of the financial accounts of the Office of the Auditor General
within the annual external audit of the City's financial statements.
9. Refer to Council for consideration
an increase in the remuneration of the Auditor General position, effective in
2008, in accordance with the salary scale established for the Deputy City
Manager position and that progression within the pay-band for the position be
set at an annual rate of 5%, subject to the AG successfully completing the
annual audit plan.
CARRIED
as amended