[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 7, 1996
.0831 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Order.
You have all received a copy of the performance report for Environment Canada. The meeting this morning will deal mainly with the performance report. Rather than getting into the technical details of the report, we will have the officials give us their comments on what the report proposes to do. For the members it will be mostly a question and information session.
Please just introduce yourselves. I think you have a presentation.
Ms Cynthia Wright (Director General, Corporate Management and Review Directorate, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to come and explain Environment Canada's approach to performance reporting. I have with me my colleague Luc Desroches, who is the director general of finance.
What we hope to do today is give you an overview of the nature of the report, Environment Canada's approach to performance reporting, and how we've gone through this process. This is the first performance report for Environment Canada. Our real objective for today's session is to situate you in the project for improved reporting to Parliament, which includes the complete cycle of planning and reporting; to give you an idea of our approach to how we've been defining results and measuring our performance; and to seek your feedback on the usefulness of this approach and where we might improve.
As some of you will know, the report was tabled only at the end of last week. It is part of a government-wide effort to improve reporting to Parliament, to provide parliamentarians with more succinct, meaningful and results-oriented information and allow them to focus on the results we expect to achieve. It is an initiative that's part of a broader planning cycle in which in the spring, departments communicate to parliamentarians the results they hope to achieve and the measures by which they will be reporting, with the fall being the reporting part of the cycle. Integrated into this, particularly as it affects our department, are the sustainable development strategies and the science and technology performance reporting.
Our goal is to provide a framework for reporting on Environment Canada's effectiveness that can be tracked over time and communicated to Canadians and parliamentarians for them to understand where Environment Canada is in setting priorities and managing expenditures within budget. This is not an opportunity to discuss the record of our performance in detail, but we understand there's a possibility the deputy and other officials may come back at a later date to discuss the actual record of performance. As I said, we will focus on the approach to performance reporting.
.0835
I think the chairs received a memo from either the whip or Treasury Board to discuss this in the broader context. Certainly departments were contacted by Peter Harder to engage standing committees in this kind of discussion on performance reporting.
To give you an overview of what's in the report, in the spring the deputy minister and the minister released the department's action plan, which set out the forty-plus results for which Environment Canada holds itself accountable. This report contains the narrative and indicators that relate to each of those results, and it establishes the baseline information against which we will build subsequent reports.
In many cases you'll notice that our performance reporting discusses not just the last year, as is the traditional way of reporting in the main estimates, but many years. This is because of the complexity of the results achieved in environmental issues. It takes time to show measurable change in the environment. Our estimate is that it often takes in the order of 20 to 30 years from the time you identify a problem, understand the problem, develop the control approach or the attitude change or the strategy to ameliorate the problem, until you actually demonstrate improvements in the environment. It takes that long a period or cycle. You'll notice in this year's report that while the focus is on the last year, there is information that goes back to previous years and really over the record of Environment Canada's 25 years.
The report attempts to give a balanced approach for where we're at, between what has been achieved and what is yet to be done. You'll see that much of the information indicates improvements that have been achieved in the environment. In fact, we think in many areas there have been substantial improvements in 25 years.
On the other hand, the report is commenting on the complexity of environmental issues, the complex interrelationships between different kinds of stresses on the environment, and the shift from local problems to global problems. This causes greater complexity in the kinds of strategies that have to be taken and the way we have to integrate environment and economy strategies to tackle problems. Environment Canada is focusing on a much broader leadership role now and on building consensus to take appropriate actions.
To give you an overview of our approach and how we've gone about identifying results, many of you will be aware there has been a shift in the department in the last two years, particularly after program review, to focusing on more results-oriented business lines. We're no longer reporting on the old organizational lines of atmospheric environment, environmental conservation, and environmental protection. We're now reporting along the three business lines we've set out: a healthy environment, safety from environmental hazards, and building a greener society.
The different parts of Environment Canada contribute to achievement of results in these business lines. We often find that we need science, for instance, from the Atmospheric Environment Service. The Environmental Protection Service may be developing the control strategies. So it's really a departmental look at the level of achievement of the department. Each of those three business lines does have sub-components or sub-activities such as atmospheric change, toxics, biodiversity, information products and services, weather forecasting, environmental protection.
The report sets out the results we've achieved and whether we still have to make progress. The intention is that in the spring planning document there will be a three- to four-year plan, so the results and the measure of progress against achieving those are over that time.
This does represent a cultural shift for Environment Canada and many other departments from reporting on activities in the past to making the shift to reporting on results. You'll notice we still have a way to go, the report says, in some areas where we have yet to develop what we feel are adequate indicators. I think that's part of the purpose of the beginning of the dialogue today: to get your feedback on what would be more useful indicators.
As I said, we have to take a life-cycle approach to these issues. So you'll notice that where we're still in the problem identification phase the result is much more worded along those lines, whereas in other areas we're much more into the continuum of changing behaviour, so we have sustainable actions to prevent problems in the future. The definition of the results, the clarity of the results, is variable, depending on the maturity of the issue.
.0840
To give you an idea of the language, it is always a bit of a challenge to communicate what we mean by results, particularly as we all make this shift from activities to results. We have a slide in there on the category of results and measures to give you an understanding of the terminology we're using.
When we say ``outputs'' we mean things that are more along traditional activity lines, things like scientific studies and policy development. The performance measurements for outputs could be as simple as delivering on time or the number of scientific reports, or it could be a little more sophisticated in terms of support for a scientific position or the take-up of a policy.
When we talk about outcomes, there are both short-term and intermediate-term outcomes. An example might be reduced loading. The indicator might be the actual trends in loading, compliance with the regulation. These are things that should be more visible in the three-year to five-year term. The longer-term outcomes are where we need to focus on the environmental, social and economic trends. These indicators indicate the sustainable development achievements for the department. They're based more on measuring the societal changes that will sustain environmental improvements. These are things like the health of ecosystems or the capacity of Canadians for taking sustainable actions.
That was just to give you an approach to the language we're trying to use.
As for some of the challenges we've been facing in measuring performance, I've spoken about the time lags. Environmental improvements take a long time to show up in the environment. This can cause some confusion about whether the strategy is effective or whether it is really just the time lag.
A number of our indicators serve for many programs. For instance, one you'll see in the report is the return of the peregrine falcon, which is really a result of two things: control of the toxic substances causing the decline in the population - DDT - and a program to reintroduce the falcons. So sometimes a performance measure measures several different strategies.
The indicators often also measure cumulative effects of many stresses on the ecosystem that require many partners and players to take action. This is where Environment Canada has to concentrate on showing what our contribution is to the solution of the problem. Sometimes our contribution is the mobilization of the other players and sometimes it's more direct action. But this is another challenge, the challenge of being able to show the link between Environment Canada's actions and the actual improvement in the environment.
Another challenge is that of taking very complex scientific information and distilling it into a form that's readily understood in a meaningful and timely way. We want to have performance indicators that allow people to determine whether the strategies are successful and whether there should be a shift in the strategies, and we want to do this in a cost-effective way. We want to make the cost of collecting the information commensurate with the benefits and uses of that information.
These are some of the challenges we've been facing as we try to develop good performance measurement information.
To give you the flavour of the kind of information in the report, I'll go over a sample of the results and the indicators with each business line, starting with the first one, which is sustaining a healthy environment. The example I've picked out as the result to be achieved is that the consumption of ozone-depleting substances is stabilized, reduced or eliminated and the ozone layer recovery begins.
The indicators we've used are new supplies of ozone-depleting substances in Canada, and what you'll see in the report is that they have been declining despite an increase in gross domestic product. The other measure is a concentration of CFCs 11 and 12 in the atmosphere. It's a global indicator.
Another example of a result to be achieved is the minimization of the negative impacts of acid rain. The indicator is the concentration of emissions, particularly SO2 and NOx, contributing to acid rain. What you see is that we're below the set targets.
For us this is one example of the meaningfulness and effectiveness of setting results. When you have something you are concretely aiming to achieve and you are monitoring your performance towards it, you can actually make improvements that are better than your actual goal.
The second business line is securing Canadians' safety from environmental hazards. The example we've picked as the result to be achieved is timely and accurate weather forecasts and warnings.
.0845
The indicators we've used are the quality-of-prediction models. You'll see the example in there of our current three-day forecast having the same accuracy as the forecast for one and a half days from fifteen to twenty years ago. That's an improvement in the quality of the mathematical computer models we're using for forecasting.
The second indicator is the accuracy and timeliness of weather forecasts. This is an example of how setting the result has really been driven from part of our client service standard approach through consultations with the clients who are using the marine weather forecasts, primarily the fishing community. We determined the optimum time period for forecasts, which is six hours. Through the consultation, we learned that if it was a four-hour forecast, we were not leaving them enough time to get to shore, so there was a higher risk of loss of life. If we gave them an eight-hour forecast, they were pulling up their nets too soon, so they were losing some economic advantage. There became the need to focus on the six-hour forecast, so now our efforts are improving the quality and accuracy of that six-hour forecast. This is where we see a link between client service initiatives, improved quality of services and performance reporting.
The third business line is building a greener society through the provision of information services, technology, partnerships and improved governance. The result I've selected to communicate to you today is green technologies, know-how and expertise transferred to the public. We've picked the indicator of intellectual property transferred, which has shown an increase from 8 to 29 intellectual property licences in the last 5 years.
Another result to be achieved is visible federal leadership and action for integrating sustainable development into government policies and operations. The kinds of indicators we have in there are waste reduction in government - you'll see Environment Canada's record in particular - and alternative fuel conversion, which is of course related to the commitment to convert the government fleet to alternative fuels.
I'm going to turn to Luc Desroches to complete the presentation and give you more of the expenditure flavour of things.
Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Finance, Corporate Services, Department of the Environment): For Environment Canada, expenditure management means continuous program review. It's about setting priorities and shifting resources to deliver results. Cynthia was talking about results management. We have to respond to shifting challenges, opportunities and commitments of the government. All of that is within a budget, which I guess will be around $480 million in 1999-2000.
The only practical way we found to make these difficult choices about shifting resources to priorities was to try to base it on results. A cut to result X will mean that we'll deliver less on one area to deliver more. It's not a science; it's a difficult balancing act.
I think that even if we weren't pressed by Treasury Board or Parliament to improve our reporting and the way we identify and try to measure results, we would have to move toward that. Again, we have difficult decisions to make. We have a lot of competing priorities for our resources. This year our priority is going to be to continue refining our results, more particularly our measures of performance. We've embarked on this, and we'll improve as we go along.
We have to improve our information on the partners and clients we need to reach and change in order to deliver results. Cynthia was talking about environmental results. We're not the only player or the only one to have an effect, so we have to improve that side.
We also have to improve the capacity of our financial system to track expenditures against results and support the internal processes of reallocation in the department to the highest priorities.
In conclusion, there's a new process for ways of coming to Parliament on resources. I guess the systems will soon replace these old part III estimates, these old blue books that we were sending every year. I guess we're here to see whether the approach to improving reporting addresses the concerns and the information needs of the standing committee. We've gone a long way. We still have a long way to go. We'd like to know how we could improve our performance reporting.
.0850
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. We will go to questions. Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): First, I must say that it's difficult for me, as it might be for my colleagues, to assess the performance of the Department of the Environment, of the Minister and of the committee, because at the outset, there is no general action plan. Which is it that Environment Canada wants to deal with over the next year? If we want to make comparisons, we need to have elements to compare.
When you say you did better this year than the last, I find it difficult to assess the progress you have made, because I do not know either what was done last year or the objectives which were established for the current one. And all this is due to the fact that there is no general action plan. What are the objectives? Where are we going? What are the priorities? What does the government want from the committee? What does the committee expect from the Department?
In my view, it's like a puzzle to which a piece is added as it is found in order to complete it.
The impression one gets is that the Minister greases the wheel that squeaks. If something squeaks in the biotechnology sector, the question is referred to the committee and people are told that we are currently working on biotechnology and that the committee is going to issue a report very shortly.
If something squeaks in the endangered species sector, the committee talks about going to see what's wrong, we react and we give the impression that we are going to deal with the problem.
It's the same thing regarding climate change. Some people express their concerns about climate change, and the Minister, at some point, seems to wake up and refers the issue to the committee. Members of the committee probably have the same problems you have. We don't know any more where to start.
This was our experience not long ago, when we had to establish priorities to deal with all the issues the House referred to us to be studied so that we can make recommendations to the Department or to the Minister. We have a whole pile of projects to examine, and our deadline does not extend beyond Easter. Why Easter? Because it is likely that the federal government will call an election in the spring.
The problem is that we cannot work efficiently if we don't know where we're going. It is not up to us to establish priorities. It's up to the Minister to take his responsibilities and establish priorities.
I find it a bit difficult to work as a member of this committee. It seems that we don't have time to finish one thing before we have to start another. We don't have a Green Plan. It is a real puzzle we try to deal with everyday. One really gets the impression that the Minister greases the wheel that squeaks. We know neither the objectives nor the deadlines. It is rather difficult to assess the Department's performance when we don't even know what we have to achieve and by what date.
Do you have an action plan and a follow-up plan? If there is no action plan, it's rather difficult to follow up on it. Is a Department official mandated to ensure that regulations and projects discussed in the House of Commons are followed up, or are we simply trying to impress the public?
The whole environmental issue is much more serious. We should not simply try to impress. We need to follow up on the action plan. Are the bills implemented?
When we have an answer to all these questions, it will of course be easier to make an assessment and to give a good mark when the performance is reviewed. I cannot give you nine out of 10, nor one out of 10 but, at first glance, it looks wonderful. It even looks impressive.
You said earlier that your report has been made available last week. As you can see, I got a copy only this morning. I therefore was not able to read it and I cannot ask you questions on this report. The only thing I can do is tell you what I feel as a representative of my riding here, in Parliament, and what the people I meet across Quebec and who ask me questions about the government's action plan tell me. Among other things, they are asking what the federal government's action plan is regarding the destruction of toxic products such as PCBs.
.0855
I recall a document which was tabled by the former Minister of the Environment, Mrs. Sheila Copps, who, since then, has taken over another Department. She had a plan with deadlines. Unfortunately, I did not bring it this morning. To date, the deadlines have gone by and nothing has been done.
Among other things, there should be a plan for the destruction of BCPs and toxic products. The deadline for that was last year, but we still don't have a plan. I think there is some good will, but between good will and reality, there is quite a gap, which is not acceptable.
Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Before Mr. Desroches responds, I would like to say again that this report is just being introduced. We wanted to let the members know the type of system it is. We will be getting into further detail on the report, the technical aspects of it and the more detailed analysis, later on as we call other witnesses.
Mr. Desroches.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: This is why I don't raise any particular point which is dealt with in the report, and why I don't ask technical questions. I am giving you an overview of the perception I have of the Department of the Environment.
Mrs. Wright: That is a good point, and this is precisely why Environment Canada's action plan is starting this spring. This is the third such plan and it is part of phase two of the Treasury Board project. We raise the issue of performance for the first time. This year, the Minister and the Deputy Minister tabled the action plan as well as the Minister's plan, which is shorter and focuses more on those results that he believes are very important.
We're presently waiting for the performance baseline information. We are just starting to experiment with a new way to table our reports. As of now, the cycle will allow us to always follow up on the same plan, the same results and the same objectives which would have been established in the spring, and this will include a performance review.
Mr. Desroches: This is what the government is aiming at, that is to facilitate the discussion of the Departments' action plans as well as the review of their performance by parliamentarians.
Up until now, we produced many documents. Part III of the Estimates included many details on each of our initiatives, each of our results, as well as a lot of information on resources. However, there was no real plan including a performance assessment and linking all these documents together. The one you have here is going to disappear and will be replaced by an action plan in the spring and a performance report in the fall.
Mr. Asselin: Based on the plan?
Mr. Desroches: Yes, exactly. I think that we'll have to say in the plan where we are at. We'll have to say whether the situation improves or deteriorates, or whether there have been further developments.
Mr. Asselin: Will you also say whether you had problems?
Mr. Desroches: Yes, certainly. The objective of the exercise is to do the spadework and to clarify all these issues for parliamentarians, the public and everyone else. Right now, it's very complicated. The objective is that we become more accountable of the monies allocated to us by Parliament.
Mr. Asselin: Madam, I am sure you realize that if things seem confused here, they must really be in complete disarray in your own shop.
Mr. Desroches: Yes.
Mr. Asselin: I do not want to point the finger at anyone, but, at some point, I would like the work you do as well as the work we do to become more and more efficient, which means knowing where we are going and having directions, an operating budget and the staff we need to work with. Then, we can be efficient. When budgets and the public service are cut, then things start to pile up, and when no priorities are established, the situation becomes totally confused. I understand it is rather difficult for you, as departmental officials, to follow up on so many issues and be efficient.
.0900
As far as we are concerned, it is difficult to assess performance adequately since we don't know what were your initial marching orders and what has been added along the way.
Mr. Desroches: That is what we are aiming at. Ministers and Deputy Ministers table a plan in the spring and the Departments' officials are asked to follow up on the performance. As of now, they will have to come back before the committee and table a performance report.
I am sure that Canadians, parliamentarians and everyone else are going to compare what we promised and what we deliver. This is what we are aiming at, to be more accountable.
Mr. Asselin: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you for coming. It's good to see the effort going into your results. I think that's appreciated by all.
It looks as if the department had some success this year with the Irving Whale. I'm wondering if you give a broad-brush comment about the ongoing plans for the Sydney tar ponds.
Then I have another question about the philosophy of the department. I'm getting complaints from the community that Environment Canada is competing in the private marketplace against small firms, not on a level playing field, in certain monitoring or environmental remediation programs. I really question whether a federal government agency should be in that business, especially when we have another philosophy that says we want to encourage local entrepreneurship in Canadian environmental industries to develop expertise locally so we can sell those products around the world.
I now have several examples of private firms entering into the bidding process to do jobs, only to lose out to Environment Canada bidding against them. Of course the resources of a small company against the department...it's not fair. There's really no way properly to measure Environment Canada's competing in the marketplace.
I would like some kind of answer about that. We may not get a full answer today, but I would like you to take that question under advisement and do some research on it. I'm going to want a much more definitive answer on that kind of performance and the underlying philosophy of how this can be justified and so on. I'm going to be pursuing that.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Before the officials answer that question, I would like to say, in fairness to the officials, that they're not here today to deal with that kind of topic, competition by the private sector. If they wish to make a response, by all means they can do so. I just want to point out that it is not the purpose of today's meeting and it can probably be addressed at another meeting.
Mr. Forseth: It relates to performance results and activities of the department. I know I can't get a detailed answer, but it probably is reflected in this document concerning revenues received and so on.
I've touched on a few things, some compliments on the agony of the Irving Whale, maybe a comment on the Sydney tar ponds and how that may be reflected in this document, and then the general philosophy of competing in the marketplace against small private firms by doing certain environmental services. Then I have a further question after that.
Ms Wright: Thank you. We are here just to explain the approach of the performance report, so we will take your comments back to officials. When you have subsequent meetings on the details of the performance report, they'll be prepared to answer those questions at that time, or earlier if you wish. We could send something back to you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.
Mr. Desroches: I would like to comment on the question of timing. The performance report is for the year ended March 31, 1996. It's always an issue, and I've often seen this in my experience in dealing with standing committees. A lot of times parliamentarians are looking for answers on things that happened in the past summer, such as the Irving Whale. This report is meant more to compare against our plan of the previous year, so there's always a timing differences.
.0905
But I've noted the questions of interest and I'll make sure some answers are brought back.
Mr. Forseth: When I turn to the financial pages, the appendices on pages iv and v, in the bottom of the column I see main estimates of $43.6 million but actuals of $47 million. It looks like overspending by the department. Am I misreading here? During that last fiscal, was the department on budget or did it overspend?
Mr. Desroches: Actually, we do not overspend. The table you're looking at on page iv is revenues. What we're saying here is that in the main estimates of 1995-96, at the time our estimates were being put together, we were forecasting revenue projections of $43.6 million, and we actually came in at $47 million. So it's actually on the plus side. This one is on the revenue side.
Mr. Forseth: Okay. Can you direct me to the page that gives an overview of the whole department so that we can look at the bottom line?
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Page 38, perhaps? I think that is the one. There is an interesting chart there for your line of questioning.
Mr. Desroches: On page v of the document, you have the comparisons of what we had in main estimates and where we came in with actuals. The other difficulty we have is that we're comparing here, and they're asking us....
It's a format thing. We did not come in over budget. We had supplementary estimates voted through the year, so here is only a comparison with the main estimates, but in the document we have an explanation on the back of the next page. We have an explanation for the difference of $29.4 million, our increase in actual expenditures. There actually were transfers in, transfers out and new funds made available to the department. We list the main causes for this change in budget levels.
Mr. Forseth: Well, for a document like this to really have some meaning.... You've now just described what I would call internal shuffling of the deck. For these documents to have any comparative value from one year to the next, we need a commitment that you're going to try to minimize that kind of thing.
You have a general category called ``Safety from Environmental Hazards'' and then another general category called ``A Greener Society'', but if the sub-components of that keep getting switched around and the department in its reporting has a mixture, there's never any annual basis to compare how you're doing. The programs get re-titled and re-shifted and things go from one department to another, and it then becomes almost impossible to understand. The whole point of the reporting exercise loses its credibility and people say this is just another feel-good document from the department; it's just another piece of glossy advertising that really has no value.
The only way for a document like this to develop credibility is for you to make sure that in the reporting from year to year, you're very consistent in the categories of activity so they can be compared. It's like the main estimates. There's a standard way of reporting those things. Sometimes you have to dig into them to find out the shuffling that's going on in the department and really find out what they're doing, but I'm making a comment about trying to add to the ongoing credibility of the document by minimizing the variety of ways things can be reported. Otherwise these documents will have no value, unless you have an expert there to explain that really you have to go from this page to that page and so on.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Mr. Desroches: Yes.
Mr. Forseth: Maybe you could make a general comment about your commitment to plain, simple reporting and being able to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
Mr. Desroches: I believe that's the purpose of it.
One comment I would like to make is that obviously at the time the main estimates are put together and tabled in Parliament and parliamentarians are asked to vote on the money, they reflect a set of programs, a set of approved policies, as of a certain date. Events happen, the Irving Whale or whatever the subsequent events, and I think that's why there are some supplementary estimates, to say we'll always have all of our expenditures.
.0910
If you want to look at perhaps a more useful presentation of resources, on page 40, where you see our resources from 1994-95 to what we have approved in targets for 1998-99, it shows the decline we'll have over the years. That, I guess, is a comparison of apples and apples. We might get a little glitch like an Irving Whale in one year that makes it go up a bit, but in terms of planning, this is what the department is using. Those are our numbers, if you want, which are approved by the Minister of Finance for planning purposes.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: It seems this is one of a number of pilot projects to see if the departments can be made more accountable. Which other ministries are involved in it?
Ms Wright: There are sixteen. I don't know if I can list the sixteen.
Mr. Adams: No, just give an example.
Ms Wright: There were six last year: NRCan, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Agriculture Canada.... There were quite a number.
Mr. Adams: The information that's in here, NRCan or these others, is already available. This in fact is a project designed to make those ministries more transparent to people like us, to Parliament in actual fact, but all the information is available somewhere else. It's available in the blue book; it's available somewhere. This is a way - using these indicators, for example, and using the new cuts you've suggested through the ministry - of trying to show existing figures in a new, hopefully more useful way for people like us.
Ms Wright: That's it exactly. If the pilot is acceptable to Parliament, it will replace the main estimates, the blue book, by the spring planning and fall reporting cycle. Last year they started with six and the feeling was that it was worth improving and expanding to sixteen this year. Based on the evaluation work that Treasury Board is leading, there will be a decision if this is the way all departments go or if we make some shifts or changes.
You're right. The information is now available. The performance reports are all available, both in hard copy and electronic version, through the Treasury Board. Our department has put our planning information on our Green Lane site with a way of tracking over to the performance report document, and eventually we'll have the performance report document electronically available on our site.
So you're right, exactly. It's to improve the communication with parliamentarians, and we hope to make the information more readily available to all Canadians to improve accountability.
Mr. Adams: The reason for the pilot budget was, among other things, that the committees had complained. They found it very difficult to go through the other material, for the sorts of reasons Mr. Forseth was describing. Even if there weren't changes, it was very complicated for laypeople like us. So there was a request, and that's how this pilot project across government started. Am I right on that?
Ms Wright: That's exactly it. Parliamentarians and, I think, the Auditor General also had complaints. This is a very large exercise to improve it, and there is a lot of evaluation work. I know Treasury Board is doing evaluation of the actual documents and is speaking to parliamentarians as to whether or not they're finding it more useful. This is one reason why they asked departments to engage in dialogue with their own standing committees. I believe we're the first to engage in that dialogue for this cycle, but there is a rigorous evaluation to see whether this is going to be more useful and meaningful to parliamentarians.
Mr. Adams: So obviously members can ask whatever they like - for example, we're all interested in the Irving Whale and we all looked at where it appeared - but it's the same information we had before. We can all ask you whether you think we're going to get the money back that has gone out for the Irving Whale, as we've asked before, but the object of the exercise today, as I understand it, is to comment on this as an indicator of performance. You don't need to answer that, but Madam Chair, I would suggest that's the purpose of the exercise today.
You have obviously worked a long time on this. First of all, I agree with Mr. Forseth's point about consistency. As this is the first attempt at it, I realize it is not going to be set in stone, but one day, assuming this process goes ahead, it has to be so that it's consistent between years. It's absolutely critical.
.0915
You have spent a good deal of your working life on this, and we have now spent thirty minutes, although I certainly intend to spend a good deal more, looking at it more carefully. I'd like to say that in the thirty minutes I have spent on it, it has given me a very interesting cut of the Department of the Environment, a very different view of it, just by looking at it in this way. I realize that you have steered us by picking these - I've forgotten your word - lines. What's the name?
Ms Wright: Business lines.
Mr. Adams: That's right, business lines. I realize that you've picked those and so in a sense you've steered us, but it certainly made me think much more clearly. I just looked at the index, and compared with the other documents we have - although there are a couple of things I couldn't find that I wanted - I found a lot of stuff that is in the ministry that I wouldn't have found in thirty minutes in the other documents. So it's a very neat view of the ministry; that would be my first comment.
It seems to me that the key thing is going to be the performance indicators. The examples you gave in your presentation are some of the ones that are in here. Mr. Forseth has mentioned apples and oranges, and we feel that we have to be careful about that. I myself believe, by the way, that oranges are the responsibility of the minister of foreign trade.
You mentioned acid rain. That would be sort of a scientific index, and we all accept that it's the one and so acid rain is getting better or worse. Then you could have a model. You have climate change, and you've put into it a number of things and you manipulate it and you say, yes, it's getting better, or no, it's not. Then you have efficiency indices. With respect to those scientific things, the ministry is doing better, it's costing less to do the same, or we're paying a bit more but we're getting better results, that kind of thing. Then you have sustainable development indices, like the whole world is getting better, or the mix of business, government and the environment is getting better.
I know you already have lots of these indices in here, but you've picked them. How do you test them? Are there other jurisdictions using such indices? Could you comment on that mix? They are apples and oranges when you get down to it.
Ms Wright: Yes, and actually that's one of the things I was trying to say. Sometimes you can have a very clear and understandable result such as with acid rain, that the SO2 emissions are going down. Other times, when you're in the beginning of defining a problem....
Many of you may have heard of endocrine disrupters, toxic chemicals that are having an effect on the hormone balance of humans. We're still very much in the understanding stage, so it's hard to define a result that might be immediately understandable to all Canadians.
Your comments, as I understand them, are related to how much we are having this diversity of indicators of both environmental improvement and efficiency, and secondly, how much we are cooperating and coordinating with other partners that have a similar impact or agenda.
On the former, this is part of the areas we know we have to improve in, just following up on a comment about consistency in the framework and better tying of the resources to the result. It's an objective for us this year to improve that. We've made some progress, so that will help us improve the efficiency indicators. It's important to us that we are better at actually costing these results and can see over time that we are improving relative to the dollars being spent. We have some of those, but we recognize that we need more.
The second area of your comments was about whether we are working with others. We are, across government, trying to work with the Treasury Board and other departments to try for the government as a whole to improve sustainable development indicators. On some of those indicators Environment Canada will readily have the data. On others it might be Statistics Canada or Natural Resources Canada where there's some information we can pool together and make a more meaningful report.
Our department is leading in the development of sustainable development indicators. I believe we reported in the report that there are eleven or twelve indicators developed. That is international work. Governments, at least within the OECD community, are measuring the same sorts of measures for sustainable development, so we can have some global measures.
.0920
Mr. Adams: I mentioned comparison. I think between ministers is a good idea. Given that you're going to establish an index for something, I think you have it and you have to keep looking at it constantly. It is an artificial thing. If you don't look at other jurisdictions outside the system, very soon the system believes the measure of improvement is right. Therefore you think, well, that index has improved so everything is better. In the end you have these indices, but you - and we - have to decide whether in fact something is improved, whether it's actually better. So we look at your graphs or something else and then we see it's better.
Let me give you an example here. It's on page 31 and it has to do with ice services, which, by the way, I would never have found as quickly in the other documents. It says that in 1995-96 the ice service.... I have a comment. ``Result to be achieved'' - surely that's a target. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I know why you use it, or I think I do.
- In 1995/96, the Ice Service successfully introduced Radarsat as the primary ice surveillance
platform, replacing aircraft and reducing the cost of ice reconnaissance by $3M per year.
Ms Wright: Who decides what is better, the quality -
Mr. Adams: - that the situation has improved since RADARSAT came in.
Ms Wright: They do have a qualitative understanding of the product. The ice service is measuring the quality of its product, the accuracy of its forecast. Also, this is one area where we've been working on client satisfaction. They do have a way of assessing client satisfaction. But I think you've raised a good point. We should be integrating the quality information with the efficiency information.
Mr. Adams: I know it's a very small matter.
By the way, if someone has some information on the quality of the new product - I don't need a great deal - I would be very interested.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Madam Chair, before I pose my questions, I should say to you for the benefit of those on the committee that when these matters are tabled, it would be helpful for members if we could have immediate access to these. It's difficult to come to a meeting such as this and be able to dissect it and come to some determinant on issues as we would like in posing our questions.
To the witnesses this morning, I would like to look at the back of page 4. Numbers are given. Something we never got to understand properly was the part III estimates. It was a very difficult document to understand. Could you interpret for us what you are saying about transfers to other departments? You're talking about the Irving Whale recovery project in 3.3 and it appears as a credit; at least I determined that's a credit. What is it?
Mr. Desroches: It's a credit. What we're trying to show on this particular table is that there was a net increase to our budget of $29.4 million. The credit ones, Irving Whale as an example...the actual contract for that fiscal year for the recovery of the Irving Whale was signed with Fisheries and Oceans. There was an agreement by our department to fund a certain share of that program. Obviously we had to reduce that amount out of our budget. I haven't seen the estimates of Fisheries and Oceans, but I would expect that in Fisheries and Oceans you would have seen the supplementary estimates, new moneys coming in, and our 3.3 would have been coming in for their department, because they are the ones who actually paid that.
Mr. Steckle: So they paid. Fisheries and Oceans would pay the contractor.
.0925
On the issue of severance pay and other Treasury Board-eligible issues and costs, is this a one-time thing? Since we've reduced staff, obviously severance is a one-time thing and it would not be reflected in next year's estimates.
Mr. Desroches: Correct. There are certain personnel costs that are not in departmental budgets. They are examples of why we'll have supplementary estimates every year - severance pay, maternity leave benefits, a whole number of things. Obviously you pay them only if people leave. Those moneys are available in the Treasury Board and we're allowed to access them, which we do via supplementary estimates.
When an estimates document is done and is tabled in Parliament, it's usually before the start of a fiscal year. Because those moneys are not in our budget, we incur the costs as the people leave. Once a year we're allowed to go to Treasury Board, via supplementary estimates, to get those moneys. So yes, there are certain categories of expenditures that are not in our budgets.
Mr. Steckle: For someone who looks at the document, it would appear the budget had been overspent by $29.4 million. I think that's the kind of thing for which we need to have a reference table so that we can clearly understand - as you indicated, Mr. Forseth - that we do not overspend our budgets; so that we can clearly understand by looking at the document, or can at least have a reference from this point. Perhaps these things can be found through the appendix, but I'm not sure because I haven't had the document long enough to check that. But we should somehow be able to find at this level a reference to another page on which this would be further explained, on which there would be further details so that we can come to grips with it. It's pretty hard for us to look at this and determine that we balanced and stayed within a budget when this last number here in fact indicates that we're $29.4 million over budget.
These are the kinds of things that would make it more likely for us, as members of Parliament, to understand. It would raise fewer questions to the witnesses as they come before us. If we had time to digest some of this material, we would have a clearer understanding of where we've gone, really, and of where we've attempted to go.
As I've briefly gone through this, I do compliment you because you've done a pretty fantastic job. I think it's a great improvement. I'm not suggesting that we've yet reached the ultimate, but I think you've come a long way.
My last comment would be that we must find a better referencing system so that we can clearly and more readily understand what you're attempting to give us. That way we clearly understand it when we look at it, and if we can't find it on this page, we know where to go for it. Through the appendices may not be the proper way to go.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
I would again like to comment in relation to the comments made about receiving the document in advance. The whole purpose of this meeting was to introduce the document and, as has been mentioned already, to look at the new system compared with the old one, to part III of the estimates. We will be getting into a more detailed analysis of the documents in days to come.
I'm not quite sure whether not releasing it until this morning was part of the process, but the point is well taken. I know it can be frustrating to not get documents in advance - especially a document as comprehensive as this one - to be able to look at it at least on a semi-analytical basis.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I apologize for coming late, and I hope no one else has asked the question that I wish to ask.
On page 6 you talk about greenhouse gas emissions. The results to be achieved are that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. The following paragraph basically says that for us to do that, it is dependent on a whole bunch of other factors. I guess the implication is that if they're not reduced, it's not our fault.
It seems to be one of the recurring dreams of the department that Canada is playing a leading role internationally. From testimony we heard earlier, my understanding is that our rate of growth of greenhouse gases is twice that of the Americans and four times that of the rest of the world. Why would we say we're taking a leading role internationally when our actions don't seem to back that up?
.0930
Ms Wright: First of all, because you didn't come in earlier, I'll reiterate that there will be an opportunity for more detailed technical questions on the substance of the report and the strategies we're using with other senior officials, the deputy minister and other ADMs at a later date, as I understand it.
Just to clarify the structure of the report, which I tried to convey in my presentation, there are results for which Environment Canada is but one of many players in terms of contributions. We are trying to articulate statements for which Environment Canada can be held accountable, and it's for those statements that we're trying to develop the performance indicators. You will then be able to track the national trend against the global trend, and if it hasn't improved you'll know the extent to which Environment Canada is accountable for that lack of improvement.
That's one of the areas in which we say there is a big challenge for us, because so much of the work that we do is, and has to be, in partnership with others. In that regard, the focus is to try to develop some intermediary indicator by which you can better assess whether or not it's because of Environment Canada's action.
As for the choice of the word ``leadership'', I think you could go into that in more detail with other officials. It is true, however, that Environment Canada has played a very active role in the international arena in bringing this issue to the international agenda.
Mr. Knutson: To stay on this for a second -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Knutson, I don't want to interrupt and I don't know what your next question is going to be, but I want to make the point that the whole idea of this morning's meeting, as Ms Wright has just indicated, is to introduce this as opposed to getting into the details of the report, the actual meat and potatoes. It is intended to introduce the system as opposed to the details of it.
Mr. Knutson: Fine.
Mr. Forseth: Madam Chair, wait a minute. You intervene here again and again. This is now the fourth time, and I think we kind of get the message. But I still think we -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Forseth, if I could, please, Mr. Knutson came in late. I was making the point of the purpose of this meeting this morning.
Go ahead, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Forseth: Well I was making the point.... Excuse me, Gar -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Forseth, if you would, please.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Forseth: No, I won't. We have to make the point that the committee has to run in order. I'm making an objection by commenting that there have been four unnecessary interventions by the chair, and that's for the record. I would like us to be able to carry on in the better spirit that we have had in the past.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Your objection is noted.
Mr. Knutson, please continue.
Mr. Knutson: I'm really not out to blame anybody or any one department. In the most general way possible, however, when somebody says this is a performance report, I would expect to see at some point....
If, for example, Environment Canada has failed to animate the rest of the country around the issue of greenhouse gases, even though the department may be extremely active and dedicated, at some point I think it's in the national interest and it's honest to say that we're failing miserably around this issue as a country. That doesn't mean somebody didn't try hard, but insofar as it's a player, we could say that Environment Canada is failing to get the message out in an effective way so that people are buying and accepting it. But I don't know that I would ever see that.
Can you give me some level of confidence that I might see that type of statement in this type of document? This is meant as a general comment to the department. If Environment Canada isn't going to say at some point that we're failing to clean up the environment in these given areas, and that these are our major concerns on where Canadians are failing, who is going to say it? If you're not going to say it in this document, where are you going to say it?
.0935
Ms Wright: It's an excellent point. We are trying to make balanced reporting between what we have achieved and what's still to be achieved. I appreciate that you haven't had time to read the document in detail, but we have said that despite the fact that the rate of increasing greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below the rate of GDP, we're not likely to meet the targets. It's on page 7.
We list a number of factors there that are some of the barriers. Some of those are obviously beyond our control, like Canada's climate. With others, such as the declining use of public transport, we describe in here that we have a relatively new initiative to target the transportation sector as an area where we need new strategies to make progress.
What we're attempting to do...through the plan that indicates this is a new area where we're going to target action on transportation...we've identified as one of the barriers of progress to date. In future reports you will be able to see whether we have had successes in those specific areas for which we can be held directly accountable, to see whether or not we are doing our share in mobilizing action to achieve the broader goals.
You're absolutely right that you should expect to see this in this kind of document. We hope to be able to do that.
Mr. Knutson: That answer is fine. I'm asking a general question. It really depends how we define the context. If Environment Canada comes here and says that within the context of budget cuts, constitutional problems and other factors they're doing a good job, and here's how they're defining it and showing it, it's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But as a parliamentarian, I'd like to see the environment department also say that the context is bogus. As a country, we're not dedicating enough resources to cleaning up the environment, or we're not taking urgent enough action on greenhouse gases. It's well and good as the Titanic is sinking for somebody at the end of the boat to say they're doing everything they can. But if not the environment department, who is going to tell us the ship is sinking?
Saying that we're taking a leading role internationally can give false comfort. I guess I'll just leave it at that.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.
The second round, Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: One of my questions deals with the manual and the other is more general. I will start with the latter.
My colleague just mentioned the Titanic. Since I do not wish Environment Canada to sink, I am going to draw a comparison with another boat. It will be kind of a caricature.
So, let's say that we have that boat: there is a helm, a captain who is the Minister of the Environment and public servants make up the crew. The name of the boat is Environment Canada.
The problems start because, on this boat, there seems to be several helms and several people who want to be in command. The person who is responsible for it, however, is still the Minister of the Environment.
The Departments of Health, of Agriculture and Agrifood, of Fisheries and Ocean, and of Natural Resources, as well as many others, would also like to be in charge when it comes to environmental matters.
If everything goes well, everyone takes some credit for that. But if something goes wrong, it is the Minister responsible for the environment, as well as his officials, who take the blame, because if something does not work, it's because it has to do with the environment.
In this system, can you pinpoint overlaps and duplications? If everybody deals with the environment, someone, somewhere, is bound to study or to talk about the same thing as somebody else. Do you find the situation frustrating within Environment Canada? This is my general question. I will then ask you a short one on the report.
Mrs. Wright: It's a good thing to have plans because it makes it easier for Ministers and Deputy Ministers to share information on issues Departments can work on jointly to achieve clear results.
.0940
All I can say, is that it is a good move and our Department puts a lot of effort in this. We work jointly with our colleagues in other Departments to achieve results at the level of the federal government and to measure our performance collectively.
Mr. Asselin: My second question is more general and deals with the report.
The report is for the period ending March 31, 1996. Seven months have gone by since then. Has something changed since the report was written? Today is November 7. Let me refer to page 14, where it says:
- Plans are to meet the Federal Government's objectives for the destruction of all stored PCBs by
the end of 1996...
- ...The current estimate of the total inventory of stored PCBs is 2,300 tonnes,...
Mrs. Wright: Regrettably, I cannot give you more details about these results. Somebody else might be in a better position to do so.
Mr. Asselin: It would be a good question to ask at one of our subsequent meetings.
Mrs. Wright: However, you will get the report some six months after the end of the fiscal year. Such is the cycle of our fiscal year. That way, we'll have time to write the report. I am sure you appreciate that all these informations are provided by a number of officials within the Department.
Treasury Board sometimes suggests that we table a mid-year report, at about this time of year, if major changes, as Mr. Knutson mentioned earlier, have occurred, in terms of the budget or our partnerships, changes that will really affect results. In such a case, we may table a short report to highlight information of that kind. But if no major changes have occurred, we do not actually table reports during the year. Our Department wants to set up a system allowing for the more timely production of reports, but this remains to be done. We don't really have a system which could be accessed by people outside the Department who want that type of information. However, our managers can access the information they need to adjust their efforts and identify their priorities. What we need now is a system accessible to outside users.
Mr. Asselin: I know that we cannot really explore these issues in detail, but we might be able to do so at our next meeting. We should have another meeting and we should invite officials to come and elaborate on some issues since, by then, we will have had enough time to study the report. Will the officials who come to meet with us, either you or other people, be in a position to answer questions regarding what has happened since this report has been written?
Mr. Desroches: Yes. In fact, this is exactly the purpose of the exercise; when officials are called, the objective is to get a discussion going and to obtain answers on all these issues. I am sure that Mr. Tony Clarke of our Department would be able to answer your question precisely.
Mr. Asselin: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.
Again I will reiterate the comments I made at the beginning of this meeting, and several times throughout, that the whole intention will be to invite in the future the officials who can go into the details of this report, to get answers to the very questions some members are asking this morning.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: I'll make my point again. I wonder why I need to be lectured about that. I object to it.
.0945
I really appreciated Mr. Knutson's comments. When I look at the preface at the front of the document, it talks about the general areas of evaluation. I recall the comments of the Auditor General trying to get at this issue of dollar value. We can see whether a department lives within its budgets or not. But to get to that further evaluation of whether we should be in this activity or not, or whether we are having any efficacious effect or not, that dollar-for-value measurement is not particularly reflected in this document. I think that's where we're trying to go, so the average layperson can really evaluate what the delegated authority of Environment Canada is doing on behalf of the average citizen.
I would think, as far as a general level of language, the document should probably be aimed at a mid-high-school level. Perhaps this document is still aimed at too high a level to accomplish the larger objective of accountability to the public.
Last evening I was at the Canadian global change program conference and listened to some of the individuals there. There was a comment that we could look at climate change, for instance, in a very complex way, or in a summary way we could boil it down to some very simple concepts, looking at the same issue without brushing it aside. It's just a way of interpreting what we're doing, being able to measure general trends to evaluate whether we should be doing certain things or not - that kind of approach.
Obviously this is an attempt by the sixteen departments of government to get to a better system of reporting toward the dollar-for-value and general public accountability. In quickly looking at this document, I'm still questioning whether we're really getting to that point.
First is the general reading level or technical competence level of the document. Perhaps it should be aimed at a mid-high-school level. Second, we should try to go beyond saying that the department is doing well, go beyond making it a feel-good document. It has to clearly reflect the problems and be able to say at a certain point, we've made no progress in a particular area, and try to put some performance measures on that.
The more plainly the truth can be revealed in these performance reports, the more credibility and trust is going to be reflected back on the department. There will also be more confidence in the department and people will be willing to spend money on the environment. I get pressured by people who don't know too much about what the Minister of the Environment does. They ask why we even need one. They want to completely eliminate the Department of Environment from the federal level. That's a very serious political concern. So when we begin to produce documents, I'm encouraged.
Perhaps you can take some of those comments under advisement and we'll keep marching toward that.
Ms Wright: I think those are excellent comments, particularly on the value-for-money and the language. The latter is something we do struggle with.
On the former, just to give you an example of the kind of work we do, the value-for-money work is difficult. I think you can appreciate the kind of analysis that has to go in to really be able to give judgment on value for money. There are two things we could do. We could clearly show what dollars are being spent on what results to allow others to determine in their own personal judgment - because it is mostly a public value question - whether those are adequate.
On the more detailed level, we are doing some pilots within the department on measuring value for money. We have one example under way, doing some research on our assessment of the value for money on our research dollars. This is a particularly problematic one, because to show the link between research and environmental effects you run into a lot of these attribution problems. But that is one area where we hope to come back with more value-for-money information next year.
.0950
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: This is meant as a general question. On page 12 you show an example of where we've done a really good job. The graph in the upper left-hand corner shows the concentration of dioxins and furans dropping from 450 down to 4.5. Have I read that correctly? Do you think we could show results where we haven't done a good job, when it's appropriate, in this dramatic a way in a performance report?
Ms Wright: If you're asking me if I think we should, I agree we should. We like to think that where we have targeted action, we have been successful. That example is where there are actually regulations or targeted action, and it does show that where we have acted, it has been effective. You're point is that if we did target action and did not show those kinds of results.... Yes, I think the department would be committed to showing that information.
Mr. Knutson: As dramatically as this graph does?
Ms Wright: Yes.
Mr. Knutson: Is your sense that such things are in here? That's meant as a general question.
Ms Wright: I think most of the information in this report shows results that are positive, because we are measuring where we have taken action - for example, on the ozone-depleting substances. Where we have regulations, we are tracking those substances and they are showing these positive trends. Our information is showing that where we have acted, we have been effective.
In the example that you pointed out earlier on the greenhouse gasses, we have some actions and we have the graph there that shows we're not being as effective as we would like. I think that shows a balanced example of reporting. If you compare the graph that you pointed to earlier on page 6 with respect to CO2 emissions, you will see there is a stabilization trend, but not a downward trend. So that, in contrast, is an example where we are actually showing that the trend is not in as dramatically a positive direction as we would like. Those are two examples of what we are trying to do in terms of being honest in our reporting.
Mr. Knutson: Is some of the downward trend in CO2 emissions, as shown in the graph on page 6, a result of the last recession?
Ms Wright: In that particular one -
Mr. Knutson: Your data go to 1994; they take a dip in the early 1980s.
Ms Wright: On the right-hand side of that graph is the dollars in GDP; the solid line is the measure of GDP. We are trying to show the economic information against the environmental information so you have some idea of whether it is a result of economic downturn. In general the stabilization is not due to that, but you can see in that particular graph that there is a match between a slight downturn in the economy in the early 1980s versus the environmental information. But on the whole it becomes a disconnect towards the end of the 1980s between the environmental trend and the economic trend.
Mr. Knutson: Yes, fair enough.
I have one other point. Presumably these little boxes that refer to results to be achieved...a deputy minister would be willing to.... Let me back up. If you were in the private sector, the president of a company, your job would be on the line as to whether these results were achieved. Can we accept that as a starting point, that this is the business plan or the performance report? Eventually at the end of the day you'd say it was a measure of how good a job you were doing. I don't know that deputy ministers would want to have their jobs on the line based on whether Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
The next one is that consumption of ozone-depleting substances is stabilized, reduced or eliminated. There are a number of others, and I think some of them are appropriate to measuring how well he or she is doing the job, or how well the department is doing its job. I think we need to be mindful of that.
.0955
Ms Wright: That comes back to my earlier point of attribution. In some cases you can more clearly show a link between Environment Canada's actions and the environmental trend. Ozone is a good example. You see a very sharp disconnect between the economic indicator and the environmental indicator at the time of the regulations coming into effect.
This whole approach to clearer setting of results and measure of performance against them is a global trend. Other countries like Australia and New Zealand have gone that way. They very clearly assess the performance of officials on the performance of the department, but I think they take a global look. I don't think anybody would want to focus on one or two indicators to assess performance.
This is why this is a performance report on 100% of the department's activities. One would have to use it to address the point raised earlier about the effectiveness of Environment Canada as a whole and its contribution to environmental solutions, as well as using it to assess the effectiveness of particular strategies and whether those strategies are useful or need to be shifted.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): If there are no other questions, I would like to thank the officials for appearing this morning. On some of the questions that have not been answered here this morning, perhaps you can pass the information along and perhaps the officials who appear in future would be prepared to deal with them at that time. Thank you very much.
The meeting stands adjourned.