Post-Symposium Summary

(1)

Post-Symposium

Summary

(2)

2014 Audit Quality Symposium: Changing Expectations

February 2015

Message from the CEO

In November 2014 the Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) convened Canada’s third Audit Quality Symposium, bringing together directors, business leaders, policy makers, audit firm leaders, regulators and academics from Canada and around the world. The event stimulated a robust discussion about audit quality issues, including regulatory developments impacting capital markets and emerging trends. It provided an occasion to share experiences and engage in candid conversations about new approaches, lessons learned, challenges and opportunities.

Symposium panelists included individuals from Canada, the US and the UK. Speakers from the UK shared their experiences from recent changes to their auditing standards and corporate governance practices, including more detailed reporting by both auditors and audit committees. There was support from attendees at the Symposium to learn more about key changes and to explore how these might be applied in Canada.

In our view, four fundamental areas for action came from the discussion:

1. The comprehensive review and audit quality indicators provide an opportunity to support audit committees in their oversight of the auditor and to enhance the focus on audit quality.

2. There is an opportunity to improve audit quality through increasing the transparency of issues included in the auditor’s report.

3. There are opportunities for the value and relevance of the audit to be enhanced.

4. There are changes coming to the audit industry that need to be actively managed to ensure its long term sustainability.

Supporting audit committee oversight and enhancing the focus on audit quality

The annual and periodic comprehensive review of the external auditor improves communication between the auditor and audit committee and supports the audit committee in its oversight role with an objective to enhance audit quality. The comprehensive review is a relatively new concept so it will be important to share what works well and what does not so audit committees may benefit from the experience of others. The case study shared at the Symposium provided insights into an in-depth approach to performing a comprehensive review. It is especially important to gather insights from companies of different sizes and industries to illustrate different but successful approaches to performing an effective review. CPAB, CPA Canada and the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) will work together to gather and share practical examples in this area.

(3)

Still, audit quality remains difficult to define and measure. There is substantial interest among the director community in identifying audit quality indicators that might enhance the evaluation of the auditor and provide more insight into audit quality issues. Work underway by the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and other organizations will help guide discussion on this topic. CPAB will work with CPA Canada, ICD and audit firms to provide stakeholders in Canada with insights on the way audit quality indicators might be practically used by audit committees in their audit oversight role once the PCAOB research is published.

Increasing transparency through expanded auditor reporting

An expanded auditor’s report, expected in Canada in 2016, with additional commentary on key audit matters, provides auditors with an opportunity to better explain the audit issues they confront and the work they perform to address them. Experience in the UK with an expanded auditor’s report highlighted the potentially positive impact of this new approach, along with its challenges for auditors, audit committees and management. Symposium participants showed interest in the application of these standards in Canada. However, Canada and the UK are two very different markets. To implement these changes in Canada we must address the practical challenges associated with a market having many issuers that have securities listed on Canadian and US exchanges, as well as a substantial number of very small issuers for which the benefit of the new auditor’s report may be questioned. CPA Canada and CPAB will collaborate with Canadian standard setters as they search for an implementation approach that can be most effective in the Canadian market.

Enhancing the value and relevance of the audit

Auditors often have difficulty demonstrating, and audit committees understanding, the value provided by the audit beyond an opinion on the entity’s financial statements that complies with professional standards. In the absence of clear value differentiators, there may be disproportionate focus on minimizing the audit fee and the scope of work and expertise that is used to perform the work may be compromised. We believe the evaluation of the auditor and awarding of audits based solely on the audit fee reflects a misunderstanding of the value that is offered. There is a need for auditors to be clearer about the value they bring and for buyers to be aware of the way they can unlock that value.

(4)

Other areas that auditors can focus on to enhance the value and relevance of the services they provide include:

• Improving the sharing of insights gained from the audit of the financial statements with management and the audit committee

• Determining whether there is a demand for additional assurance in areas outside of the financial statements including the Management Discussion and Analysis

Audit firms in Canada and CPA Canada will be integral to progress in this area.

Managing change

We are on the edge of a transformation – of both the way business is conducted and audits are performed. In the next 10 years, the audit industry is poised to change dramatically. These changes in the way audits are planned, performed, staffed and communicated and how audit firms structure themselves to compete have the potential to alter the quality of the work that is performed. The trends discussed at the Symposium will be examined in more detail in a paper that is scheduled to be released by the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators in the next few months. CPA Canada, CPAB and the ICD will participate in the discussion of trends and look for opportunities to involve audit firms, audit committees and other stakeholders in the debate as it unfolds.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Hunt, FCPA, FCA, ICD.D Chief Executive Officer, CPAB

2014 Audit Quality Symposium: Changing Expectations iii

(5)

1

2014 Audit Quality Symposium: Changing Expectations

Summary of Key Themes

The Symposium kicked-off on November 20 with a dinner and a keynote address by Stephen

Haddrill, CEO of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in the United Kingdom. Highlighting a number of topics and issues top of the mind for the profession, ranging from audit policy developments in the UK to innovation and emerging trends, Stephen’s address set the stage for the following day’s discussions which were framed by the following four panels:

• Panel 1: International Developments in Audit

• Panel 2: Current Initiatives to Enhance the Relevance and Reliability of the Audit

• Panel 3: The Evolving Role of Audit Committees

• Panel 4: A Case Study on Performing a Comprehensive Review

Details on the panelists and moderators are included in Appendix A. We were especially honored to have Madame Jia from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) share her observations from China. CPAB’s website is home to a number of other related content including an event pre-read and the results of voting questions asked at the Symposium.

This is a brief synopsis of the following key themes that arose throughout the event: 1. International reforms

2. Auditor reporting

3. Evolving role of audit committees 4. Audit quality indicators (AQIs) 5. Comprehensive review

6. The relevance and value of the audit 7. Current trends in the audit industry

(6)

2014 Audit Quality Symposium: Changing Expectations 2

1. International Reforms

A prominent theme for the Symposium was the changing regulatory landscape with a focus on auditor tendering and rotation. In April 2014, the European Parliament approved legislation that, among other changes, will require mandatory rotation of audit firms at least every 20 years (if they tendered at 10 years). Several other countries currently require some form of mandatory rotation or tendering, including India, Brazil, the Netherlands and China, which, in 2010, mandated the rotation of audit firms every five years for state-owned entities and financial institutions.

Stephen Haddrill discussed the impact of the introduction of audit firm tendering every 10 years for the FTSE 350 companies on a “comply or explain” basis. Over the past two years, a number of major company audits have been put out to tender, with over half changing their auditors as a result. The objective in the UK was to allow companies to assure their investors that they had the best possible auditor for the business and allow for the audit committee to re-appoint the current auditor. In addressing concerns on the potential under-cutting of audit fees in a mandatory rotation regime, Haddrill stated: “I’m pleased to say that the initial evidence suggests that is being avoided particularly amongst the large companies, but it’s something we’re going to have to do some work on and to research into to make sure that it’s not happening.” This remains an area to monitor to understand how the trends evolve.

Despite the positive message shared by the UK panelists, when polled, 72 per cent of Symposium participants favored the Canadian private sector response of enhancing the assessment of the external auditor and introducing a comprehensive review. Don Wilkinson, Vice-Chair, Deloitte Canada, said, if done properly, a comprehensive review of the auditor could achieve the same objectives as mandatory tendering or rotation and would allow the board and audit committee to retain control of the process. Lewis Ferguson, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Board Member, said fees have historically decreased in the US after tendering which could negatively impact audit quality. The PCAOB does not have an active project to require mandatory audit tendering or rotation.

(7)

3

2. Auditor Reporting

Recently proposed changes by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) and the PCAOB will soon require reporting on key or critical audit matters. The new and revised auditor reporting standards, developed to improve communication and transparency about audit matters to investors and other stakeholders, were unanimously approved by the IAASB in September 2014 (final standards were issued in January 2015 for use in reporting on 2016 calendar year-end audits). Arnold Schilder, IAASB Chair, said key audit matters could include significant risks that the auditor has addressed, significant judgments from the auditor regarding management’s judgments and estimates, or important events or transactions.

In the UK, a new auditor’s report has been effective since 2013. Haddrill stated that the new requirements for auditor reporting have resulted in diverse approaches across audit firms.

To better understand how the firms were implementing the new requirements, Citi Research reviewed a number of auditor reports, publishing their conclusions in March 2014 and September 20141_{. The reports highlighted Rolls-Royce}

as an example of the auditor going “beyond the minimum requirements by reporting the auditor’s findings for each risk”.

Jimmy Daboo, KPMG UK Partner and lead on the Rolls-Royce engagement recounted some of his views on how to approach the new requirements and challenges he encountered:

• “When we were thinking about key risks, we wanted to be absolutely clear why for this company and for this year, this particular risk was that important”

• “Making sure we selected only the most significant risks”

• “Avoid boilerplate generally, and try to use, as far as possible, simple language”

• “Not pulling punches. Was it difficult for me with two clients to persuade them that I had to call out on their companies that the risk of bribery and corruption was particularly important? It was very, very difficult. Did we have very long discussions with management and Boards on that? Yes. What was the outcome? The outcome however was a better description of why that was a risk for that company, both in what we said and actually in what the company was saying too”

“Don’t be frightened of the new audit report… it’s probably the best thing that’s happened in the industry in the last 50 years.”

Nick Land, Director for FRC, Audit Committee Chair, Vodafone Group Plc

(8)

Although Daboo admitted initial caution, stating that: “we were very aware that what we were being asked to do is to expose in public many of the discussions that we’d been having already with management and the auditors, and we thought that could lead to some unintended and unexpected consequences,” overall, he believes implementation of the new requirements has been a success in the UK, with strong support from the investor community.

There was also widespread support for the revised report among Symposium participants; 70 per cent were in favor of including a discussion of key audit matters in the auditor’s report, and that it would make the auditor’s report more understandable and relevant and promote greater transparency. When the question was asked again after hearing Daboo share his experiences, those numbers went up to 85 per cent.

Views on how to best implement the new auditor’s report in Canada varied, with 21 per cent preferring to switch over as soon as possible, 32 per cent indicating that further discussion and briefings with investors and audit committees are required and to hold off until 2016, and 34 per cent suggesting to stagger implementation, starting first with the larger-cap companies.

1

I like it, it should make the auditor's report more understandable

and relevant

I like it, greater transparency should enhance audit quality

I don't like it as it will likely impair communications with

the audit committee

I don't like it - the only thing readers want to

know is - are the financial statements fairly presented or not

Undecided 1st Response 2nd Response 37% 46% 33% 39% 6% 4% 11% 3% 14% 7%

Table 1: Participants’ reaction to including a discussion of key audit matters in the auditor’s

report (before and after the discussion on the extended auditor’s report)

(9)

5

3. Evolving Role of Audit Committees

The Symposium raised key issues around the evolution of the role of the audit committee and how to support audit committees in light of changing expectations in

their oversight role and assessing audit quality. The key issues included:

→

The need to enhance the relationship between the audit committee and the external auditor

→

The audit committee’s role in evaluating audit quality

→

Audit committee reporting

→

The audit committee’s role in assessing audit fees

The need to enhance the relationship between the audit committee and the external auditor

Despite growing pressures on time and agendas, the need for effective discussion between the audit committee and the external auditor remains a priority for most audit committees. When polled, 38 per cent of participants stated that including more time in audit committee meetings to discuss significant issues and key judgments would best contribute to a more effective relationship between the audit committee and the auditor, while 29 per cent cited making more effective use of the in-camera sessions. Specific concerns raised by the panelists included:

• The auditor is being heard as much as he or she wants to be heard and as much as the audit committee wants them to be heard. Given the complexity of organizations today, auditors should be asked to explain more

• For some audit committee members and auditors, a ‘successful’ audit committee meeting is one with no questions – this indicates there may be a missed opportunity to understand and challenge key issues addressed by the auditor

The audit committee’s role in evaluating audit quality

Evaluating the external auditor when it comes to audit quality remains a difficult task for some audit committees. Some said the tools released by CPAB, CPA Canada and the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) on the annual assessment and comprehensive review of the external auditor provide an understanding of the audit committee’s role in evaluating the auditor and why audit quality is important. This guidance has led to better communication with the auditor and greater transparency. Panelists stated that additional or modified guidance is not necessary at this time, but experience with the tools and guidance would be useful.

“[An audit committee] is a very busy place to serve today and while the mandate was once to oversee and approve the financial statements, it’s so much broader, it’s got internal audit, regulatory and compliance, cyber security, fraud, it goes on and on”.

Alan MacGibbon, Corporate Director and former CEO of Deloitte Canada

(10)

Audit committee reporting

In 2013, the FRC amended the UK Corporate Governance Code to introduce a requirement for audit committees to disclose, in a separate section of the annual report, significant issues considered by the audit committee in relation to the financial statements and how they were addressed, an explanation of how the audit committee assessed the effectiveness of the audit and their approach both to appointing the auditor and ensuring auditor independence. Nick Land, a Director with the FRC and audit committee Chair, Vodafone Group Plc stated this has resulted in audit committees becoming more effective in assessing audit quality by having them be more engaged with the audit team and having a deeper understanding of the significant issues and risk areas of the audit and how they were addressed by the auditors.

While similar requirements have been proposed by the EU, Canada and the US currently do not have requirements for this type of audit committee reporting. However, 89 per cent of participants (including 85 per cent of audit committee participants) either strongly or moderately agreed that audit committees in Canada should report annually to shareholders on their activities and key judgments.

The audit committee’s role in assessing audit fees

The audit committee panelists all agreed on the importance of the audit committee’s role in

determining a fair and reasonable fee for the external audit, with Bill MacKinnon, Corporate Director and former CEO of KPMG Canada, indicating that he often finds it difficult to differentiate between the Big Four as external auditors, leading to behavior whereby audit committees use price to differentiate one firm from another which then leads to other firms needing to reduce their fees to remain competitive. This practice is not consistent with a primary focus on audit quality.

Land indicated that he expects fees to go up rather than down in the UK after tendering, at least for larger organizations, if audit committees ensure they remain in “absolute control of the tendering process.”

“The more that you describe what you did, the more you will be certain that you do it.”

Bill MacKinnon, Corporate Director and former CEO of KPMG Canada

“The most important thing is that it is the audit committee that is owning this negotiation and that the audit committee is devoted to raising quality and is sending the right message to the bidders that [an appropriate audit fee] is what they want to see.”

Stephen Haddrill, CEO of the Financial Reporting Council

(11)

7

4. Audit Quality Indicators

Gregory Jonas, Director of the Office of Research and Analysis, PCAOB, discussed the PCAOB’s initiative on audit quality indicators (AQIs). Comparing the audit to an iceberg, he suggested that because much of what constitutes the quality in an audit lies beyond the grasp of the public, audit firms and the buyers of the service tend to focus on the aspects of the audit that are accessible, the tip of the iceberg, which “undermines the market’s ability to demand and reward the underlying ingredients needed for the highest quality work”.

The PCAOB is identifying a portfolio of AQIs that might provide insight into audit quality and they are exploring how these can best be used in the market. Jonas acknowledged there are sensitivities around the project including whether a consensus can be achieved on what those AQIs are, whether they apply uniformly to audit firms of all sizes, and who the intended users are of those indicators. While some AQIs may be considered non-controversial, such as partner to staff leverage, staff utilization and the number of findings from internal and external inspection processes, others may be considered more controversial, including the percentage and nature of work outsourced to service centres, the absence of a going concern paragraph prior to bankruptcy or an anonymous independent survey of former or current firm personnel about tone at the top.

While Jonas expects a portfolio of about 15 indicators may be sufficient to present a balanced scorecard, AQIs are not to be considered as determinative; AQIs require qualitative analysis, or context, of what the data implies. He also suggests that AQIs will be most valuable when they can be comparable across years, engagements and firms.

After hearing from Jonas, 73 per cent of participants showed support for audit firms providing the audit committee with a report on AQIs, including 92 per cent of attendees representing the firms. The PCAOB expects to publish its concept release on AQIs in the first quarter of 2015.

“AQIs + Context = Insight”

Gregory Jonas, Director of the Office of Research and Analysis, PCAOB

(12)

5. Comprehensive Review

David Smith, audit committee Chair of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) – one of Canada’s largest pension funds, David McGraw, OTPP Chief Financial Officer and Don Wilkinson, representing OTPP’s audit firm, Deloitte LLP provided an overview of the comprehensive review they had recently conducted, how they best leveraged available tools and resources, challenges and benefits of the process and the impact on how they will assess audit quality and the firm going forward.

Smith stated that while the process was intimidating at first, it was very worthwhile and, as a result, he feels confident that they have the right audit team going forward with a vision aligned with theirs to meet their strategic goals. He stated that it has improved communications between the audit committee and Deloitte, with Wilkinson agreeing, adding that he believes the audit committee learned a lot about audit quality.

The panelists’ observations described a detailed process that involved a significant time investment. An audit

committee planning a comprehensive review will want to combine these experiences with those of others who have performed a comprehensive review in determining the scope and time to dedicate to the process.

The discussion by the panelists can be summarized as follows:

I. Planning and execution of the comprehensive review II. Key learnings and recommendations

III. The external auditor’s experience

“This exercise probably did more to bring us closer to our auditors and understand both our needs than any other exercise I’ve gone through, and we as an organization, as the audit chair, I think we learned to state our expectations better.”

David Smith, Audit Committee Chair, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan

(13)

9

I. Planning and execution of the comprehensive review

• Independent research on the audit firm (Deloitte), specifically around unknown litigation or claims

• Questionnaires leveraging the toolkit developed by CPA Canada, CPAB and the ICD, however with significant customization so that it reflected not only past performance of the auditor but also had a strategic focus as they looked into the future. The questions were designed to support OTPP with their requirements to have an audit team that could handle the complexities of the organization, its increasing global reach and strategic goals

• Interviews including with the audit committee chairs of both OTPP and Cadillac Fairview (a significant subsidiary with a separate audit team), other audit committee members, and with various members of Deloitte (engagement partner candidates, quality assurance, risk)

While management, including the CEO, and internal audit, were heavily involved in the process and workstreams, it was the audit committee that was ultimately responsible for the evaluation of the auditor.

II. Key learnings and recommendations

• Leave sufficient time and have an education session upfront for audit committee members to understand what a comprehensive review is and its purpose

• Plan to perform the comprehensive review at the time of partner rotation as this is usually when there is a reassessment of the audit firm and the overall audit team

• Consider whether the audit team of significant subsidiaries should be included (OTTP chose to include a significant subsidiary in their evaluation). The review of a subsidiary audit team should be performed simultaneously with continuous communication between the two organizations

• Consider the future requirements of your organization to ensure your auditor has the geographic and industry coverage to be able to respond to your organization’s future as well as current areas of risk

III. The external auditor’s experience

During the comprehensive review Deloitte was asked questions about their qualifications, how they are demonstrating innovation and commitment to the audit practice and audit quality, independence, and professional skepticism. Mr. Wilkinson added that the quality of the discussions was high, in-depth and challenging; for example, Deloitte was asked to provide examples of instances where they and management had different views and how they resolved it, or to provide concrete examples of how they demonstrated professional skepticism. Wilkinson said Deloitte learned a lot more about expectations of management and the audit committee that weren’t initially on their radar.

“In terms of relationship, any time you have an opportunity to spend more time with a key stakeholder, like your audit committee, is good and really sets a basis and understanding of expectations and dialogue going forward.”

(14)

6. The Relevance and Value of the Audit

Alan MacGibbon, Corporate Director and former CEO of Deloitte Canada, indicated it was his belief that the current audit has value to the market but his concern is that this is partly through an “assumed value”. Specifically, the value is obtained through the auditor’s role as an independent reviewer adding integrity to the information, unrelated to any insights provided by the auditor. Jim Goodfellow, Corporate Director and Symposium Co-Chair discussed the role of the auditor in enhancing the reliability of financial information and he stressed that it is also important that the auditor’s work is seen as relevant. Goodfellow said the profession has an opportunity to provide value enhanced auditing where users find the auditor’s work both relevant and reliable.

Panelists provided examples where the audit can be more relevant and provide greater value including:

• Greater innovation to make the audit faster, better and more efficient through the use of data analytics

• Greater transparency provided with the new auditor’s report

• Additional assurance provided on non-GAAP measures and/or offering perspectives on management reports

• Involvement in assessing enterprise risk analysis

• Providing insights on company performance

When polled on the additional services auditors can provide to best enhance the relevance or value of the audit, responses varied with an equal number of responses for greater

involvement and public reporting on quarterly financial statements (23 per cent) as those in favor of improving audit committee communications with no changes to audit

scope (23 per cent). Consistent with this divided view were the polling results indicating that the most significant barriers to enhancing the value or relevance of the audit were (1) the desire of issuers to keep costs down (33 per cent) and (2) a lack of interest or demand from audit committees or investors (30 per cent).

“If we were inventing from scratch an audit regime, I suspect most of us would say that the most important information that drives market perceptions of value and risk ought to be audited. But that’s in fact not what we do. We draw a circle around something called the financial statements and everything in that circle gets audited including page four of the pension footnote that doubtful drives markets in many cases but there is in most industries critical information that we don’t dream of auditing…it is truly unfortunate because I think it hurts investors.”

Gregory Jonas, Director of the Office of Research and Analysis, PCAOB

(15)

11

7. Current Trends in the Audit Industry

The audit industry is under pressure and is facing a number of transformational trends, including:

• Attracting and retaining the best and brightest with a specific focus on retaining people as they become more senior in their careers and are faced with increased risk and scrutiny in their jobs

• Defining the continuing role of audit in accounting firms which are increasingly multi-disciplinary

• Continuing to innovate and develop thought leaders that can define the future of the industry

• Changing how the audit is performed through the increased use of technology

When polled, participants stated challenges in attracting and retaining top talent as the environmental trend that will have the greatest impact on audit quality and relevance (32 per cent), followed by data analytics and big data (22 per cent) and evolving capital markets (20 per cent). In commenting on the use of technology, specifically data analytics and big data, several speakers acknowledged the growing expectation that data analytics and big data will change the profession as auditors look for greater ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the audit. And while it is thought that this area is still in its infancy, it is also believed that the major firms have the scale, ability and talent to invest in this area heavily, understanding its potential value to the audit and impact on the profession.

“Our challenge for the type of people we need in the external audit world into the future include: programmers, gamers – the ‘Flash Boys’ type, investigators and detectives, great communicators, scientists who understand the algorithms, and exceptional auditors and the deepest accountants.”

Alan MacGibbon, Corporate Director and former CEO of Deloitte Canada

Closing Remarks

Brian Hunt, CEO, CPAB and Nick Le Pan, Chair, CPAB closed the Symposium indicating a belief that we are on the edge of a transformation – of both the way business is conducted and how audits are performed. In the next 10 years, the audit industry is poised to change dramatically. It is important that all stakeholders work closely together to manage this transformation effectively.

(16)

Appendix A

2014 Audit Quality Symposium Program

The Symposium consisted of four consecutive sessions:

Panel 1: A session on international developments in audit; moderated by Jim Goodfellow, Corporate Director and former Vice-Chair, Deloitte Canada. Panelists included: • Lewis Ferguson (PCAOB Board Member, Chairman, International Forum of

Independent Audit Regulators)

• Stephen Haddrill (Chief Executive Officer, Financial Reporting Council (UK)) • Arnold Schilder (Chairman, International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board) • Jia Wenqin (Chief Accountant, China Securities Regulatory Commission)

Panel 2: A session highlighting current initiatives to enhance the relevance and reliability of the audit; moderated by Kevin Dancey, President and CEO of CPA Canada. Panelists included: • Jimmy Daboo (KPMG UK, lead audit partner for the Rolls-Royce audit)

• Brian Hunt (Chief Executive Officer, CPAB)

• Gregory Jonas (Director of the Office of Research and Analysis, PCAOB) • Alan MacGibbon (Corporate Director and former Chief Executive Officer,

Deloitte Canada)

Panel 3: A session on the evolving role of audit committees; moderated by Sheila Fraser, Corporate Director and former Auditor General of Canada. Panelists included: • Nick Land (Director, Financial Reporting Council (UK), Audit Committee Chair,

Vodafone Group Plc)

• Bill MacKinnon (Corporate Director and former Chief Executive, KPMG Canada) • Alan MacGibbon (Corporate Director and former Chief Executive Officer,

Deloitte Canada)

Panel 4: A case study on performing a comprehensive review, featuring Ontario Teachers’

Pension Plan (OTPP) – one of Canada’s largest pension funds; moderated by Sheila Fraser, Corporate Director and former Auditor General of Canada. Panelists included:

• David McGraw (Chief Financial Officer, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan) • David Smith (Chair, Audit Committee Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan) • Don Wilkinson (Vice Chair, Deloitte Canada)