Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Karen Hogan]

We wouldn't be able to do an audit on what provincial governments are spending, obviously, since my purview is the federal government.

The note that you're referring to is actually the government's estimate of its projected cost to clean up sites where the federal government has accepted responsibility for the cleanup and is able to estimate the liability. It isn't so much that organizations can access this; this is what the government projects that it will cost to remediate sites.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Would you have any advice for municipal or local governments that are trying to access federal government programs related to contaminated sites, such as an old railway yard in the middle of the city?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I can take that for Ms. Hogan.

Their MP should work hard on it.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I don't think that falls within public accounts, Mr. Kram, with all due respect.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Fair enough.

Let me turn to page 76, then. It says:

The government's “Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites” sets out a framework for management of contaminated sites using a risk based approach.

Then a sentence later, it says:

This systematic approach aids in the identification of the high risk sites in order to allocate limited resources to those sites which pose the highest risk to human health and the environment.

How does the Government of Canada work with the provincial and municipal governments to identify and prioritize the cleanup of these sites for which the Government of Canada has responsibility?

[Karen Hogan]

I can start, and maybe the comptroller general would want to expand.

Just to be clear, the sites that are listed here are sites where the federal government has accepted sole responsibility, so the timing of a cleanup and the procedures used to clean up will vary from site to site. I think the comptroller general might be able to provide you with some details, but there are over 6,000 sites in there, so I would imagine it would be something on which they'd have to get back to you.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay, fair enough.

On page 77 of the same volume, it talks a lot about unexploded ordnance. I was a bit surprised to find there were a couple of these suspected sites that contained unexploded ordnance in the city of Regina. One is RCMP Depot and the other one is the exhibition grounds, where there were military training grounds.

I am wondering if anyone can speak about factors that would lead to the classification of a site as being unlikely to be cleared, because it says that there are several hundred sites that are suspected to have unexploded ordnances that are unlikely to be cleared, and I find that quite concerning.

[Karen Hogan]

Over the years, during our audit work, we do randomly pick sites to audit, and we go back and look at the environmental assessments and the approaches that the government is taking.

I couldn't tell you if we looked at any this year, but I know from the many years that I've been involved in the public accounts of Canada that there are a lot of experts involved who decide whether not touching the unexploded ordnance is the safest choice, that it is buried deep enough and that it doesn't cause harm to the community, anyone or the environment around it.

Really, that question is probably best asked to the Department of National Defence, which manages these sites. The department could provide you with details as to what criteria it uses to make those assessments.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That is your time, Mr. Kram.

I will say that I am impressed that you managed to bring public accounts to a local issue. That is impressive and does not happen often on this committee.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again for coming in a second time.

Ms. Hogan, in terms of additional environmental, social, and governance reporting, how are other countries handling these disclosures from an audit standpoint?

[Karen Hogan]

As we mentioned in some of the previous answers to the questions, it is an area that standard-setters are really starting to delve into a lot in recent years. There are varying applications, and it depends on the standards that are being applied by the country.

The typical issues are around the valuation of assets and if you're trying to put certain assets on the books. It's really more about disclosing the risks and the potential cost associated with those risks going forward. I think you would see a very different approach across different countries, depending on what their standards require or depending on the proactively taken approach.

I couldn't give you a more pinpointed answer than that. My apologies.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you know one country that stands out as a leader in this type of reporting?

[Karen Hogan]

Unfortunately, I don't. I'll look to my colleagues, but everyone is shaking their heads, so unfortunately not.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Okay.

I'll follow up in a slightly similar area.

How do the credibility and completeness of Canada's public accounts compare to other countries?

[Karen Hogan]

As we mentioned on Friday, my office has issued a clean opinion on the Government of Canada's financial statements. That is something that not many countries have done, so the federal public service should be proud of that accomplishment. It's a lot of work for many public servants.

There are a few countries that actually issue whole-of-government financial statements, and there are two others that have clean opinions that I could highlight. I believe one is Australia and the other is the United Kingdom.... It's Australia and New Zealand; my apologies. Those are two other countries that also have clean opinions on their whole-of-government financial statements.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I think we're pretty fortunate here.

I was looking at the gender, diversity, and indigenous rights section of the report. How would you report that in public accounts? How could you quantify this?

[Karen Hogan]

Can you direct me to where in the public accounts you're looking at?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

It was in exhibit 9.

I'm a visual person, so I love infographics. It was in this section.

[Karen Hogan]

Is it from our financial commentary...?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I was looking at social reporting.

I am curious as to how you put this into numbers, because everything in those three volumes is numbers.

[Karen Hogan]

Exactly. A lot of this is about managing risks and having programs designed around those risks. It doesn't have to be in the Public Accounts of Canada; it could be in the financial statement discussion and analysis, and that is really the story that talks to you about the numbers. It could be in other reporting that the government might do.

For example, we also highlight in our commentary in paragraph 47 some instances in which the government is imposing certain requirements around social governance, risks, and climate risks. There are the green bonds, and there are new requirements for the Crown corporations coming in, so it will be scattered about, which is probably the best way to do it. It would then be up to the government to somehow roll that into the public accounts to demonstrate that it has done its responsibilities and due diligence.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 40 seconds.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Okay.

Maybe I'll start this question.

What constitutes 7.8% of other revenues? There was a nice pie chart of some sort.

I guess it will take 35 seconds to look it up.