Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I only have 10 seconds left.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's right.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I'll stop there, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Desjarlais.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues. I think you're all asking very good questions today, especially Madame Sinclair-Desgagné. Thank you so much for introducing the topic I wish to discuss, which is environmental concerns, and in particular the cost of climate change in Canada.

Just from the questions asked by my colleague, it's certain how important this is for Canadians, how critical it is to update our accounting principles to make them more transparent for Canadians and how important it is to understand the costs to the public when it comes to these things.

When I was first elected, we had an emergency debate. One of my first emergency debates was on the flooding in British Columbia, a massive catastrophe that affected my province dramatically. People we have heard from coast to coast are concerned about this.

We also have seen examples of the catastrophe we witnessed with Hurricane Fiona and how public infrastructure and people's communities were just completely uprooted.

In my province, we deal with forest fires. I worked in the province of Alberta at a time when we dealt with huge forest fires that totalled hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. When we looked at ways to demonstrate that loss to Albertans, it was quite difficult because of these considerations.

For the sake of Canadians who are faced with an emergency in climate change, I think it's important to attempt to paint a picture, without the kind of accounting principles that would make this discussion more comprehensive, to try to help Canadians understand the total damages that we face due to climate change.

I ended my questioning last Friday with Mr. Huppé with a question I asked on damages. I looked into some of the further details you provided to me then as well. I referred to a particular section within volume III, I believe it was, which said:

In 2020-21, 497 cases of vandalism and 109 cases of accidental damage totalled $2.9-million. By comparison, the 2022 Public Accounts detail 579 cases of vandalism to buildings or real property and 284 cases of accidental damage, totalling $48.9-million. Most of that increase is attached to accidental damage, which jumped by $45.7-million. Twelve departments and agencies reported damage or vandalism to public buildings or real property in the 2021-22.... [T]he highest associated cost was reported by Parks Canada (at $43.34-million, of which $43.26-million was accidental damage.

Fisheries was a close second, and so on, in those 12 ministries.

I do want to get to both the Auditor General and Mr. Huppé, but we can start with Mr. Huppé, please.

Last week you mentioned that there was, in one particular account of yours, a conversation about a bridge and the total damages related to that bridge.

Could you elaborate on the cost of that bridge and the impacts it has, and where Canadians can find those things in the information you presented?

[Roch Huppé]

Yes. My comment last week, which I remember, provided examples of the types of assets we own. You were looking for damages as a result of these climate realities, I will say.

I gave you an example of some of the damages that Parks Canada has had. This year, some of the damages were caused by a storm in Cape Breton. Those were to roads. I gave an example. I'm not sure if you also asked about a bridge, or which bridge, but there were damages to roads. Those are mentioned in there. We also have other types of assets that could have been damaged. We own all types of real property, including warehouses and bridges, so again I was giving you an example of what could be damaged in the case of a storm. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

That's all right.

In the accidental damages this fiscal year of $48.9 million, how much was related to climate emergencies?

[Roch Huppé]

I don't have that. I'm not even sure. Some of the departments may have that granular breakdown, but we would have to get back to the organizations for that, honestly.

When you talk about accidental damage in a place like Parks Canada, they own many assets around the country, parks and stuff like that. Many tourists have access to these parks. Obviously there's going to be some damage.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I think the important part for members is to understand that this number is difficult for both us and for you to understand, and when we're planning climate policy and climate liabilities, it's imperative that decision-makers have this information. I hope to impress how important that is to not only public spending but also to reviewing the public spending.

How will the government ensure that the reporting around the direct cost of climate change is relevant and complete in the future?

[Roch Huppé]

First of all, let me say that I definitely agree with the importance of having more granular-level data around that type of reporting. I come back to the fact that standards are being developed. That said, even without the standards, we always strive to provide the best information possible from a financial reporting perspective.

As I said, we do have some reporting on our climate objectives and so on through the greening government strategy, for example, on the site of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Other departments also have that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'd like to be able to extend the question to the Auditor General while I have the opportunity.

Do you agree that it's important for the government to specifically note how much real property is lost or damaged in a year due to climate change?

[Karen Hogan]

It's interesting to look back and say what was damaged. I would really like to see how much is being invested in building climate-resilient infrastructure, and I think you do need to understand the damage to understand how much you can invest.

When we recently released a report on emergency management in first nations communities, we highlighted a statistic that Public Safety Canada brought up that said that for every one dollar invested in being better prepared, you could save up to six dollars. I think that could be translated into climate-ready infrastructure, but you do have to start by understanding the impacts of climate emergencies on buildings.

I think every organization, however, does that on their own, and what I'm hearing the comptroller general say is that it may be difficult to aggregate it across the entire government, because it's not tracked that way. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be, maybe in the future as the government takes a view of being more climate-ready and climate-resilient.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn now to Mr. Genuis. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

These public accounts documents are a treasure trove in more ways than one.

I'm on page 140 of volume III, and I want to ask about this issue of debts that were owed to the federal government that have been written off or forgiven, effectively turning a loan into a direct subsidy.

In particular, with respect to the Export Development Corporation, a Crown corporation, the line seems to indicate that over $820 million was forgiven, and that was based on number of claimants: one. If I'm reading that correctly, that suggests that one company had a loan of over $820 million forgiven. Is my understanding of that data point correct?

[Roch Huppé]

That data point is an error. The EDC could not, at that moment, tell us exactly how many cases they had, so that “one” will be corrected in an erratum later on.

In this particular case, it's not meant for one case, and I don't have the number for you, obviously, because we haven't got it yet, but it's definitely not one, to be honest.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis gets a gold star there.

Please continue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm not that happy about the gold star, Mr. Chair.

I suppose it's good to know that one company didn't receive an $820-million loan writeoff, but it's still not great news that over $820 million worth of debt was written off last year and that EDC doesn't know or can't tell us how many claimants there were.

Are they looking into it? How did that error happen? Can we find out the names of the companies?

[Roch Huppé]

They are working on it. That I know.

Again, I'm obviously assuming we can provide a lot more detail on that breakdown, in terms of what exactly that $122 million is. I think it entails forgiveness, to be honest with you. We can definitely come back to you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'll look forward to a follow-up on that.

Again, I'm just incredulous. They wrote off $122 million in loans and they don't know how many companies it's for, but they are working on telling us how many companies it is. Are we going to be able to access the list of companies?

[Nicholas Leswick]

I'm going out on a limb, here, but I want to satisfy the member's frustration.

That exposure is probably the $50-billion-plus exposure related to the Canada emergency business account. You're talking about an exposure spread across probably around a million small and medium-sized businesses drawing loans against the Canada emergency business account, administrated by Export Development Canada. The $822 million is part of a $50-billion-plus exposure, just to put it in context.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Do you know that, or is that a guess? You said “going out on a limb”.

[Nicholas Leswick]

I'll work with the comptroller general to confirm that. I just didn't want to.... You seemed really unsatisfied with the nature of the—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Well, I'm still unsatisfied if you're guessing for me, to be honest.

[Nicholas Leswick]

I'm pretty convinced, in terms of how I interpret what I see in volume III. I haven't spent a lot of time in volume III lately, but I'm pretty convinced that's the exposure we're talking about.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Perhaps you can spend a lot of time on it and get back to us with a clear answer—