[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 23, 1996

.0900

[English]

The Chairman: We have a quorum, so we can call this meeting to order. I would like to welcome our officials today to the meeting of this committee for the consideration of the main estimates.

We have votes 1, 5 and 10 under consideration, and the purpose of today's meeting is a general briefing on the main estimates, part III, which were intended - and still are, one hopes - to make it easier for elected representatives to understand what estimates are all about.

Therefore, on your behalf I would welcome Luc Desroches, Harold Humber, and Samuel Wex. They are directors general of financial planning and resource analysis, corporate management, and the finance directorate. They're certainly carrying a substantial burden and they have tremendous knowledge to offer. So without any further delay, I would invite you gentlemen to make a presentation from your perspective, and then we will see to what extent we are in a position to ask our questions.

Who would like to go first?

[Translation]

Mr. Sam Wex (Director General, Corporate Management and Review Directorate, Environment Canada): Mister Chairman, we are at your service.

[English]

We're here to respond and be helpful to you in the briefing on the main estimates. Key responsibility for that resides with my colleague Luc Desroches from finance.

Very briefly, we thought we would just set the scene for you. There is an outline as to how we propose to walk you through the main estimates. The purpose is basically that you come away with an appreciation of how this is put together and how this information can be helpful to you. The whole purpose of the expenditure management reform is to make for more accountable estimates and communication to parliamentarians and to committees.

The second aspect of the expenditure management system is to establish a framework, you might say, for a more client-responsive way of doing business, and that's what our business plan was all about. I'm not going to take you through the business plan part of it. This is an analysis of the main estimates.

I'll ask my colleague to start with the overview and I will intervene, particularly when it comes to explaining the business lines of the department and how we've organized that way, why we've organized that way, and how we got there as a result of program review.

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Corporate Services, Finances, Environment Canada): Thank you.

Using part III of the estimates, I'll try to explain the numbers, to provide some technical details behind the numbers in the estimates with respect to part II.

The Chairman: Mr. Desroches, in addition to explaining the numbers you may also want to explain to us the meaning of certain words like ``full-time equivalents'', which we see on pages 12 and 13. Are these objects or human beings or stars in the sky or fixtures in the department? In other words, there is a necessity here to translate into common language some of the language used in these part III estimates. If you wouldn't mind, I would ask you to expand your explanation to terminology and not just to figures.

Mr. Desroches: I will try my best, Mr. Chairman, and I invite questions if I miss some parts.

.0905

On page 1 of the estimates you'll see that the department is requesting, for fiscal year 1996-97, $546.4 million, compared to our main estimates of 1995-96, which is a reduction of $83.5 million. The reduction is mostly attributable to program review. In a couple of minutes, we'll provide details about the program review.

You'll see that this is made up of five different votes. There are three budgetary votes, the three votes under consideration by this committee: 1, 5 and 10.

The operating expenditures, which is the bulk of the expenditures, 80%, of the department is $439.6 million. Roughly 46% of the department's budget is salaries, which is included in that $439 million. The other is for other operating expenditures, 34%. Again, Mr. Chairman, I'll be able to show you where in part III of the estimates we have those details.

The capital expenditures vote is where we record all capital expenditures for assets over $10,000 individually. As an example, if we purchased a laptop computer that cost less than $10,000, we would not capitalize it; it would be spent under ``operating''.

Finally, our grants and contributions are at $40 million. We also have two statutory estimates that most departments would have every year.

You will see at the bottom of page 1 that we talk about our vote wording. Again, I refer you to the third-to-last line under vote 1: ``authority to spend revenues''. I'll show you where, in certain cases, the department is allowed to re-spend its revenues. There are other revenues that we're not allowed to re-spend; we have to deposit it to the consolidated revenue fund.

So our estimates are $546 million net. There are other revenues on top of this that we're allowed to spend, and I'll show you those in a second.

For comparison purposes, Mr. Chairman, the estimates for the next two fiscal years after 1996-97 are not shown here, but will be in the outlook document that our minister will be tabling with this committee in the next couple of weeks. The estimates for the Department of the Environment are going down to $500 million in 1997-98 and $479 million in 1998-99. That reflects both program review one and two.

Another technical point with respect to the estimates is that these documents were put together as of December 15. If there have been some events after December 15, they would not be reflected in these texts or numbers. That's why, during the fiscal year, there are two supplementary estimates, one in October and another in February, in which we would pick up adjustments since that magic date of December 15, which is where we pinned this.

In the last budget of the Minister of Finance, in February, you'll remember that the cuts for the environment portfolio included the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, at $17.2 million, but that's a reduction in 1998-99, so it's not in this estimates document here.

I invite members to turn to page 2 of the document. This is where we show our 1996-97 estimates of, again, our $546 million as broken down by our new business lines. In the past, we used to do our estimates by major organizations: environmental protection, atmospheric environment, and environmental conservation, etc. This is not the case any more. We are now doing these estimates through what we call this new planning framework or new way of displaying ourselves to the standing committees and to Parliament.

We have the budget broken down. I invite members to look at the fourth column, $55 million, which is the revenues credited to the vote. So the department this year will really be spending $546 million, which Parliament will be asked to vote on, plus the $55 million, for a total of $601 million in gross expenditures.

Naturally, if we don't collect part of the $55 million, we can't re-spend it. That's part of the deal. I'll show you later where there are some other revenues that the department gets that we're not allowed to spend.

In 1996-97, there are two sort of reorganizations in the government, which explains in part why our budget is decreased. I mentioned the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that used to be in our estimates in 1995-96; it's not in our estimates any more. There was a reorganization for the pesticides portion of our budget. The Department of Agriculture's budget went to Health Canada in order to create the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, so there are some functions.

.0910

I mentioned program review one, which accounts for $54.6 million of the reductions. There were previous budgetary reductions, the sunsetting of programs, and programs that have been approved for a specific period. That accounts for another $23.2 million of reductions. We also had some minor increases in a couple of programs.

Part III of the estimates usually always refers to three fiscal years: the fiscal year that has been completed, 1994-95; the fiscal year that is in progress, 1995-96; and that of the upcoming year. On page 3 of the estimates, we just show you how much of the moneys that have been voted by Parliament were used during the fiscal year of 1994-95.

Go to pages 12 and 13 of our estimates. This is where we show, by business line again, our major business lines, and by our organization, where our funds are spent.

[Translation]

We show the estimates broken down by activity for every region in Canada and also for the groups at the head office. It shows you where those $ 546 million will be spent.

[English]

The question was asked: what is a full-time equivalent? The old terminology that was being used here before was person-years. The FTE is a measure of any combination of periods of employment in the fiscal year that equals the employment of one person for one full year. So if we have two people for six months, we count that as one full-time equivalent, as is twelve people for one month.

Again, on pages 12 and 13, we show on the last line at the bottom how our budgets are broken down by organizations and by major activity. There's also the full-time equivalents, the number of people employed in the department.

The Chairman: Do you see yourself as a full-time equivalent?

Mr. Desroches: I am a full-time equivalent.

The Chairman: Where would you be buried in this chart?

Mr. Desroches: I would be under administration under the ADM of corporate services. So we have 260 full-time equivalents there. I am one of the 260, as are my two colleagues here. We're three of the 260 in there.

The way part III of the estimates is organized is that we have a program overview, and then we go into each of our major business lines. The program overview starts on page 4, where we talk about highlights of major performance and our key plans, which are summarized at a very high level. There are more details as we progress in the document. I'll be able to show you where. So pages 4, 5 and 6 are sort of the priorities.

Before you get into the details of our programs, in the program overview section that starts on page 7, we provide some of the background or context under which the Department of the Environment operates. When we talk about the environment, we have to talk about the different jurisdictions and partnerships, which is what's being done on pages 7 or 8. We talk about our mandate on page 9, and how we are organized to deliver it.

I showed you how the budgets were broken down by the four business lines on page 12. Again, throughout the document... If we use, as an example, page 25, we'll show you how the budgets for a healthy environment are broken down into our different business-line components, how that the first budget totalling $230 million is broken down on page 25 through our five major business-line components, or sub-activities, if you want to call them that.

.0915

We provide the details in terms of dollars, in terms of full-time equivalents, and we show the revenue we are able to credit to the vote.

At this point, Mr. Sam Wex will talk about why the department adopted this new way of presenting itself through the estimates documents - what we call our new operational planning framework or our new business lines - and explain the thinking that went behind them. It's really the thinking that was used in rebuilding the Department of Environment after program review one.

Mr. Wex: To facilitate walking through most of the pages of the part IIIs, for ease of reference I'm going to refer you to the previous minister's action plan.

The cycle for the expenditure management system is such that by April 30 we will deliver a business plan to Treasury Board. Shortly thereafter, we'll have all the results on the deliverables in the business plan. This is a way of making it easier for you and Canadians to understand the results and the deliverables and what we're trying to achieve for the $600-odd million we have available this year to expand.

I will go back and forth and hopefully this will make it easier for us to go through the discussion. They're the kinds of things, I think, Mr. Chair, you were interested in seeing - the results, the deliverables, and what we are getting for the money Parliament has approved for this department.

How did we get to this way of presenting ourself? You will recall that traditionally this department, when it came before you, presented itself as the Atmospheric Environment Service, the Environmental Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Service. Then a year and a half ago we underwent program review.

Program review was a massive change for the department. Rather than looking at each of the services, we approached it by looking at three functions. Almost every department in government can characterize itself as science, or the knowledge we generate; policy or governance issues - the partnerships, laws, regulations, standards, and international work we do; and service delivery. In looking at it that way, our approach was not to take too much out of any one of these areas that would make the other component, because everything is interrelated. You need the science, and we're a science-based department. We are the largest science-based department in government in terms of percentage of resources devoted to science and related science. We played the governance function because very little can be done by any one jurisdiction alone, and the environment is a shared responsibility. Service delivery is how we touch Canadians, but in a new information society, how do you touch Canadians?

We approached redesigning or repositioning of the department by calling it rebuilding the department as a 70% department for the year 2000. There were greater opportunities to cut back relatively more on the service delivery through modernization and our ability to close 56 weather offices and replace them with new modern technology. So we took relatively less out of the first two segments - science and governance - and more out of the third.

When we completed that exercise, we realized that to speak to Canadians from an accountability point of view, they would relate less to science, policy and service - even though this was an intelligent way to reposition the department - than to protection, conservation or atmospheric environment. They related to things like toxics, atmospheric change, biodiversity, preserving our ecosystems and our weather. Those were the things Canadians wanted us to account for.

.0920

In building the three business lines we asked, if our context is sustainable development, how does this department operationalize sustainable development? We do it through three interrelated businesses that include reducing risks to human health and the environment, so the slogan is a healthy environment for healthy Canadians; the second one is safety from hazards; and the third one is a greener society.

The first one includes the long-term objectives for what a healthy environment consists of, and we have five components there. The second one relates more to the short-term hazards and emergencies that come from either the weather affecting Canadians and how we get the warnings out quickly, or, conversely, the spills that are caused and the emergencies that result from what Canadians do to the environment. The third one, which is more recent, is building the capacity of Canadians to take responsible decisions. As the minister said, Canadians in large measure are ahead of government in knowing what they want to do. They want the tools, the information and the technology that will help them to do that.

That's why we have these three business lines and these ten components. Look through the part IIIs and go to any one of these business lines. For example, we'll start first on a healthy environment. Let's try to relate those few pages that follow from page 25 to the display in front of you.

As my colleague mentioned, there are five components to a healthy environment. They include atmospheric change, toxics, enforcement, biodiversity and conserving our ecosystems. If you flip the page to page 26, you'll see that atmospheric change itself has five components, each with its own results.

The part IIIs are more complete. They have context and they'll have more results. This is simply illustrative. On this page we try to give people, through illustration, a sense of what they'll receive and what they should hold the minister and the department to account for delivering on $600-odd million of expenditures.

From a framework point of view, that is how the part IIIs are organized. Rather than going through the results or the deliverables at this stage in any great detail, we will tell you what our targets are for 1996-97 for each result. We will report back in next year's part IIIs on how well we did. They will then move to the left-hand column. We will state our next year's targets for deliverables in the right-hand column.

This gives greater transparency of information and allows you to be able to hold us more to account. That's the objective. In fact, I know from central agencies point of view this is being seen as a model in terms of transparency of information. That's certainly our objective.

We'll move on and continue walking through the part IIIs. Then we can come back and look in more detail if you have questions about what we presented.

Mr. Desroches: I'd like to refer to a few more pages in the estimates that provide additional information. On page 117 in English,

[Translation]

and page 126 in French, the estimates for the department are broken down by major items for those three years.

[English]

You will see I mention the salary portions before the $254 million, the employee benefit plans that are $26 million, the goods and services, the balance of the operating budget, what types of expenditures we incur in our department and the same thing for capital.

[Translation]

On page 128 in French or

[English]

119 in English is where, for our personnel requirements, we show you the number of biologists, chemists and all the different groups we have in the public service and in the department. We show you how many people we have and we show you the trends for the three years, the past two years and the estimates here. We provide that information.

.0925

On page 121,

[Translation]

and page 128 in French,

[English]

we show you by major categories how our capital expenditures are broken down.

Probably of more interest to members are the details of our major projects, starting on page 123,

[Translation]

and page 132 in French.

[English]

For every project that is over $1 million in total, we have an explanation here. We provide the details of the costing, and when there have been major changes from previous estimates documents that were tabled, we explain those, starting on page 125.

On page 127,

[Translation]

page 137 in French,

[English]

we provide all of the details of the various grants and contributions in the department. Again the presentation is always by our major business lines. Again we show you the three-year trends on each of them. You will see that a lot of them have gone down to zero. Either they were cut as a result of program review or, in a lot of specific cases, they had been provided for one year. They were a requirement last year but they're not a requirement this year.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Desroches: Yes. We're starting on page 127 on the English side.

Mr. Knutson: The ones that drop to zero are all just -

Mr. Desroches: The ones that drop to zero start on page 129. You will see where we have some dashes.

The last point I would like to make is on page 133,

[Translation]

page 142 in French,

[English]

where we provide all of the revenues and a fair amount of detail, again as a three-year presentation and again by business lines.

Pages 132, 133, and 134 are on the revenues we are allowed to respend, the $55 million I've shown you before.

Starting on page 135 are the revenues we are not allowed to respend, which total about $3 million.

There is a lot of information in part III of the estimates, as my colleague just mentioned.

I'd like to mention two final pages.

On page 141 in English is where Canadians can get more information from the department, from our inquiry centre or from our home page on the World Wide Web.

Finally, to help people go through part III of the estimates, we have a topical index, to which people can refer in order to find out exactly where in this document are details on the major things.

Mr. Wex: I would like to sum up in terms of next steps from a process point of view, where things are going.

As I mentioned to you, within ten days to two weeks we will be tabling the business plan with the Treasury Board. In the business plan there will be the new results and the new deliverables for the next three years.

Shortly thereafter, two new documents will flow from that. One is the departmental outlook. The minister came last week and presented to you his six priorities. They will be captured. He listened to your questions. The departmental outlook document will then be forwarded to this committee.

At around the same time, within the next few weeks, a new document, a new minister's action plan based on the results and the deliverables, will be available as well. As you go forward in your discussion with departmental officials, you might find it helpful to have that information available to you. We'll certainly make it available as soon as it is completed.

Thank you very much. We're available for your questions, remembering that we're here to look at the estimates and not to comment on the policies and programs, which will be the pleasure of our colleagues, the ADMs and the RDGs, with the deputy, who will come before you in the next few weeks.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wex. Mr. Asselin, would you like to start?

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): About revenues, at the top of page 132, I read ``Revenues received from Other Government Departments''.

.0930

And under that, revenues received from Indian Affairs are shown. However, there is no equivalent amount showing as an expenditure in the estimates for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. From the government's point of view, it should be revenues for your department and expenditures for the other.

Mr. Desroches: Indeed. Departments are not allowed to spend on certain projects if they do not have the experts needed. Take for example the lab tests that have to be done for environmental assessments. Those departments that do not have their own laboratories come to us. They are billed the cost, but we still have to cover it. There is also the revenue part of it.

Mr. Asselin: On page 16, Part III of the 1996-97 Main Estimates, it says that the program review will result in a reduction in the department's budget of 30 % or about $230 million. In the middle of the page it says also that staff will be reduced by 1,400 and that key programs will be eliminated.

Which key programs will be eliminated in this fiscal year? Which ones will be maintained at current levels? And which ones will be bolstered by increased funding?

Mr. Wex: On page 17, we give more details on cuts. As I said before, 56 weather offices have been closed in the atmospheric environment program and that means a lot of employees are losing their jobs.

On page 17, we also show a number of programs that have not been renewed.

Mr. Asselin: If you are referring to page 17, I want to mention something. In his May 1995 Report to the House of Commons, the Auditor General of Canada was critical of the federal government with respect to the clean-up of contaminated sites across Canada.

Among other things, the Auditor General observed that Environment Canada had failed to compile a complete inventory of national and federal contaminated sites and that it had not developed a national action plan to clean up the remaining contaminated sites that pose a risk to human health and the environment.

According to the Auditor General, just cleaning up the remaining federal contaminated sites alone would probably cost in excess of $2 billion. However, it is stated at page 17 which you mention, that funding will be completely eliminated for contaminated site clean-up and PCB destruction.

How can the elimination of funding for the clean-up of contaminated sites and for the destruction of PCBs be reconciled with the federal government's avowed intention to devote more resources to address human and environmental health? It sounds like double standards.

.0935

Mr. Wex: I will refer that question to Mr. Clarke, our ADM for environmental protection, who will be appearing before you within a few weeks. He will be able to give you an answer at that time.

Mr. Asselin: As a senior official, you should be able to answer this question. Those are components found in your estimates and you are responsible for managing this budget. I didn't write that, you wrote it yourself.

Mr. Wex: It would be better to let an expert answer your question. I prefer that Mr. Clarke answers the question himself.

Mr. Asselin: What's his name?

Mr. Wex: Tony Clarke, assistant deputy minister, Environmental Protection.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin. Mr. Forseth, please.

[English]

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you.

Yes, I certainly understand the difference between your ability to answer the policy questions as to what to do and... You're here to give the answers or the details as to how you implement it once that's been decided, and what the numbers are in the describing, so there's a qualitative difference.

This document is nicely laid out, with an index and all kinds of titles and numbers and everything, but still I'm having trouble following it through. I would like you to take a topic and then walk me through the document in relation to that topic, first of all in a descriptive way - where the document talks about it - and then with a look at the numbers.

The particular topic I'm interested in is the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the CCME. I can't even find it in the index. Could you discuss how the document reflects the government's approach to that? I understand a fair amount of provincial funding has been cut back. Where are we going and how will the funding cuts affect the CCME's operations?

Please walk me through the document. What does the document say about the CCME and its implications?

Mr. Wex: We'll take a moment to respond to your question.

No matter how intelligent you think your presentations are, there's always going to be a cross-cutting issue that just doesn't pop out at you in the way you would like. Part of the feedback mechanism for us is how we can make these documents more responsive to your needs for the future. So it's important we listen to your questions and try to adapt the documentation for the future.

Mr. Forseth: Looking at page 142, under ``Topical Index'', I would have thought somewhere under ``C'' the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment would appear, and all the pages. But since it's not there, can you proceed with what I've asked you to do?

Mr. Desroches: You'll find the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on page 130 of the estimates in the ``Details of Grants and Contributions'' under ``A Greener Society''. It's the second item of contribution; in 1996-97 it's $752,000. The way this contribution works is the federal government pays one-third of the operating budget and the provincial governments share equally two-thirds.

I'm told there's also a reference at the top of page 106, where, on some specific topics, we refer to the ongoing work and how we work in partnerships.

The reason the funding is going down is that not only the federal government but all provincial governments are cutting their funding, so the agreement was we would have a smaller council and a smaller staff. That's reflected in the budget reductions.

.0940

Mr. Forseth: In our notes, the question was put this way: Given that Ontario, Quebec and the federal government are the CCME's largest contributors, questions are being raised about the organization's ability to complete its work of coordinating and streamlining environmental programs. Maybe you can give me some assessment of how the funding cuts will effect the CCME's operations.

Mr. Wex: I think that when Mr. Avrim Lazar - he is the ADM of policy and communications - is here to testify, he will be able to explain to you both the policy direction and what the expectations and results are that they're looking for from the CCME.

Mr. Forseth: But at least from the funding commitment, the federal government is still going to be in the game and still carry forward. Could you characterize the cutbacks as streamlining and as trying to perhaps, as they say, work ``smarter rather than harder'', but still without fundamentally cutting the essential thrust of what the CCME is all about?

Mr. Wex: I think that's our understanding, to be sure. But again, for someone to give you a better feel for what they're looking for, both in terms of products and deliverables from the streamlined organization and in terms of what will drop off, we'd feel more comfortable if we left that. We will refer that question to Mr. Lazar so that he is aware of your interest when he comes forward in a few weeks.

Mr. Forseth: Okay.

Your opening statement, in a generic, broad-brush sense, said that you're looking forward to being more accountable and much more client-responsive. Maybe you can bring my eyes to specific parts of this document that relate to that kind of description.

Mr. Wex: The whole layout of the document, if you turn to any page, lists a result - the progress and the targets. The communications document, which other departments are now emulating, for the Canadian public is this action plan. That's where ministers have used it, where the deputy minister has used it. For any letters that we get from Canadians who want to know more about the department, we find this to be a very useful tool for communicating what we're trying to achieve. But as I say, the details are in part III.

I just happened to have opened to the page on wildlife conservation -

Mr. Forseth: What page is that, sir?

Mr. Wex: It's on page 51 on the English side. It says ``For migratory birds and other wildlife populations, associated benefits are sustained or increased.'' Well, we do have trend lines, we're able to monitor performance. We'll be able to come back to you and explain to you that the trend lines are either sustained or increased, and certainly be held to account on our business plan. This is a way of holding us to account in a much more stringent way - by having us articulate the results, tell you what we've done, and tell you where we're going. That's the intent, and we'd like to think this department is in the forefront in the way we're managing by results.

There is one other thing that I could have mentioned before. When we developed the way in which we're doing business this year - and this is why I think it'll be productive when you pursue your further discussions - we did not organize by particular services. These results are the product of all the services and the regions coming together and agreeing in an integrated way, in a comprehensive way, on what the targets will be. It's no longer that toxics is simply the purview of the protection service. Many toxics come from the atmosphere, so you therefore need the atmospheric service at the table to develop these results.

So even though money flows through the three services, the articulation of results and deliverables comes from an integrated departmental approach, from asking about the most that we can get out of working better together internally to articulate the results and to come up with deliverables. There has been a lot of cross-fertilization in the way we've managed the program this year.

.0945

Mr. Forseth: Just in these general descriptions, for instance, I think you did use the example of page 51. It would be nice to have some descriptive numbers attached. You might say 50 people are involved in the core activity and tangentially 100 other people are involved and your plan is to get 200 people...some kind of general description of how much money may be involved in this particular activity, maybe with a subset number cross-referencing it to what particular column or section of the estimates they come under. So instead of descriptive terms always saying, well, we've done so much and we're going to do better next year, and listing some activity with some fancy names, there would be at least some objective numbers attached to it so we could see how we relate these narrative descriptions to the numbers in the columns and how you cross-reference the two.

Mr. Wex: I'd like to caution about expectations. We've been trying to push the numbers down as low as possible. In this year's business plan... Again, without it being in front of you, it's difficult to explain to you. We'll be able to tell you if you go to page 47, for example, on biodiversity and wildlife... Certainly for this year, for example, from page 25 you know how much we're spending in that component business line in total. On page 25 it tells you it's $40 million, and 305 people are working in that area.

We hope next year to be able to take it down into what we call the ``principal thrust'': what are the main essential components - not the results, because the results are a lower level still. What are the main thrusts in that area? We're hoping to be able to get the resourcing down to that level. Again from an investment decision point of view, is it more important to invest in one area as opposed to another area? That's always the decision we're trying to trade off.

But to go down below that, from a bookkeeping point of view, because nothing is ever discrete, a person could be working on a few results at the same time; there are a lot of partnerships in the way we do business, both within the department and certainly with others. It's very difficult to go too fine. But we are working in that direction, yes.

Mr. Forseth: It fits with your theme. You want to be more accountable, and you can be accountable only if there's some way of having benchmarks, measurable levels. You don't know where you're going unless you have some quantative description of where you've been.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

[Translation]

Mr. Lavigne, followed by Mr. Knutson.

[English]

Mr. Knutson is a new and very welcome member of this committee. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Lavigne.

Mr. Lavigne (Verdun - Saint-Paul): It seems that the department's whole budget is around $600 million, right?

Mr. Desroches: We are forecasting expenditures of around $600 million including $55 million in revenues from various sources. We are therefore asking Parliament to approve estimates of $546 million net. And we will be spending another $55 million over and above this amount. It's all very simple.

Mr. Lavigne: Those $54 million will come from elsewhere?

Mr. Desroches: Yes.

Mr. Lavigne: From other federal departments?

Mr. Desroches: From other departments and customers.

Mr. Lavigne: Okay. What percentage of those $546 million will be spent on staff, on properties and in the department, and what percentage will be used for projects such as landfills and small regional or riding initiatives, etc.?

What percentage will go directly for staff and property management and for projects outside in partnerships with companies and others?

Mr. Desroches: I don't know whether I can give you a satisfactory answer. On page 1 of the estimates, we give you an overview of the way our $546 million will be spent.

Over $439 million or 80% will go towards our operating expenditures including 46% for all the employees' salaries and 34% for maintenance. Capital expenditures make up about 5% and grants and contributions, 8%.

.0950

Mr. Lavigne: Grants and contributions?

Mr. Desroches: Yes.

Mr. Wex: On pages 12 and 13, you can see that $66 million of those $546 million will go to administration, for overhead, and the balance is forecasted expenditures for

[English]

healthy environment, safety, and greener society.

[Translation]

Mr. Desroches: Those $66 million in estimated administration costs will not cover only overhead. There are also estimated costs for a computer system used for administration purposes but that could also be used for program delivery.

Mr. Lavigne: But what percentage exactly will go towards partnerships with others for the outdoors, to improve nature and the environment? I don't mean what is being done inside your offices, your computers and program delivery. I want to know what will be done outdoors for the renewal of our environment. How much of the budget will go towards such projects?

Mr. Wex: About 90% according to the estimates shown on pages 12 and 13.

Mr. Lavigne: That is under ``Operating Expenditures'', $439,000 and then ``Capital Expoenditures'', and also grants and contributions for $40 million, is that it?

Mr. Wex: Yes.

Mr. Lavigne: Is this $40 million out of a total budget of $546 million?

Mr. Desroches: Yes.

Mr. Lavigne: So $500 million are spent for the bureaucratic machine only?

Mr. Desroches: Yes, you're right.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Knutson: I want to start by commending you on your efforts. I think you've done an excellent job of putting out the information. I assume you're trying to adopt the best practices of private sector management in terms of results-based. That raises a general question, and maybe you'll tell me it's inappropriate and I should ask someone else, but I'll try it here anyway in terms of the process.

There's no question that you have to account for value for dollars, and when the department is going through a 20% or 30% cut you have to account for how you've identified your priorities, where you're spending your money, client-based services and all of that. That's all well and good and it's to be commended, particularly in today's environment.

But I want to raise a more philosophical question. It seems to me that part of the business of Environment Canada's work would be to identify the opportunities for legislation where we could do the most in terms of enhancing our environment for the least cost, and unless you identify that as part of your objective or part of your mission, it's not going to show up in your business plan.

Can tell me whether that concept of saying where the opportunities are for laws that we might pass where we can make some impact for a cleaner environment, laws that need to be resolved...or what the controversies are that we can look forward to over the next five or ten years from a legislative point of view. Because part of your business is to pass legislation. Are the senior thinkers in the department thinking about those things and are they laying them out on paper anywhere?

Mr. Desroches: Yes, they're doing it. That's probably the main function of the policy support we have in the department that supports the minister and that does this analysis about the challenges, the opportunities, how you can work in partnerships given the jurisdiction, etc.

There's a group of people in the department whose main function is to do those types of things. And obviously a minister has to put the political imprint on the whole thing and decide which ones he goes for and accepts and which ones he doesn't. Naturally, he has to bring some of those to cabinet and there have to be some discussions about these things and the different options and scenarios.

.0955

Mr. Knutson: Is it incorporated into the language of business planning?

Mr. Wex: One has to be cautious in a sense of not pre-empting or prejudging cabinet and Parliament in blue-skying what you can do. It is one thing to set out the environmental challenges, the fiscal challenges, the governance challenges that you face, and in general ways how you would approach it, your strategies. The business plan this year is very largely at the level of the three business lines in terms of the strategies and where we're going.

If it's in the whole area of a healthy environment, the main strategies clearly are in the areas of pollution prevention. Increasingly, we hear language about eco-efficiency, and that's moving your industry to the forefront. These are ideas, whether they need a legislative response or they're a policy response. In some cases you still may need cabinet approval for a new initiative. One wouldn't want to go too far in suggesting what you're going to do before you have that approval.

So there's a balance in terms of stating the challenge, the general strategy, what you're building on and then how does it translate into actual concrete results and deliverables. What are you actually going to do? That's generally the way we've tried to frame it. It's different from a private sector business plan. There is a distinction, clearly, but from a public sector point of view, how do you dialogue where you're going and how do you set that four-year timeframe?

This year we think we have a pretty good document coming forward in terms of the strategic component positioning us for the year 2000.

Mr. Knutson: My point is more on say part of a General Motors or IBM business plan would be about identifying opportunities...

Mr. Wex: Opportunities are, in our case, largely through the way we do business in terms of partnerships. A large part of what we do is setting the vision, setting the ground rules and then bringing people together to work with us to achieve those.

Mr. Knutson: I understand that. In a sense, that can be reduced to trying to get better value for the dollar. My point is that from Environment Canada's point of view there are opportunities out there that may not translate into money issues, for the federal government, anyway; they may translate into money issues for someone else. I mean situations where you could ask are there opportunities and pass a particular piece of legislation that results in environmental improvement at minimal cost.

I take it your response is that in getting into that kind of discussion you're getting into a discussion that might pre-empt the minister, or cabinet. Have I heard you right?

Mr. Wex: I'm giving a personal view as to how far in a business plan, which is supposed to set the framework for the next four years as to what you're doing, one can muse about what's possible. There is a panoply of legislation and rules that are ongoing.

There is a meeting of the national policy committee in the department every few weeks that does nothing but governance types of issues about how can we advance rule-making standards, whether it's laws, formal or voluntary action. So there's always a constant push on pushing that agenda at work within the department. Some of them come up to cabinet documents and it's only once the cabinet has approved it that we announce it as a formal new direction.

Mr. Knutson: Is that work that occurs at the departmental level for public discussion, or is it done in secret?

Mr. Wex: Ultimately, everything is for public discussion. It's preliminary thinking leading to getting something articulated so you can have public discussion about it.

Mr. Knutson: So at the initial level it's not for public discussion.

Mr. Wex: At the initial level, things are at a very early stage: someone has an idea, and they may be communicating and asking people outside the department what they think about it, as well.

Mr. Knutson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Finlay, please.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to be late. If I'm going over old ground, I hope you'll just stop me; and if I'm not asking a question these gentlemen can answer, stop me.

The Chairman: Keep in mind the framework within which we are operating this morning. If you're looking for policy answers, then you have to wait for the next meeting. If you're looking for answers related to the way the part III book is organized and the figures in it, then by all means go ahead.

.1000

Mr. Finlay: I think, Mr. Chairman, I'll just pass, because I'll only confuse matters.

The Chairman: That's what happens when one arrives late. Yes, I understand very well.

Who is next? Madam Payne?

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too must apologize, but we had a very important meeting this morning, and my neck of the woods was very involved there, so I do apologize.

In regard to the Green Plan that was introduced in 1990, can you expand a little bit more on that for me and tell me whether or not there's still money left in that and what programs, if any, are still going to be funded in the future over the next six years.

Mr. Wex: When we did our program review, unlike all the other government departments where the Green Plan was set up for a certain number of years and sunsetted at the end of that period of time, in our department every Green Plan program had been so integrated into everything we did that it was impossible to pull out the Green Plan program from the initial program. As a result, our program review cuts were on the global sum, including the Green Plan.

I could answer your question perhaps best by an analysis we did in the department that went back before the Green Plan, 1988-89, and compared it to 1998-99 in terms of how we will have shifted the resources in the department. Because if you go back to the end of the last decade, we were a department of about $500 million, if you take out the parks program, and if you go ahead to the end of the program review exercise, we will again be a program of about $500 million.

What I'll give you is a synopsis of the changes we've made in positioning the department for the future. For example, in 1988 the weather services made up 40% of the program budget. By 1998, that proportion will have dropped below 30%. The savings will have been accomplished largely through the automation of forecasting and dissemination and the commercialization of specialized products.

Next, over that decade air quality research will have approximately doubled, from about 5% of the program budget to close to 10%, and a part of the increase can be attributed to concerns over newer issues like climate change and airborne toxins.

Third, the amount devoted to health and productivity of biota will have remained relatively constant, at less than 10%. However, within that envelope there have been some dramatic shifts away from the individual wildlife species, where provinces are now playing a larger role, to biodiversity and habitat preservation more generally.

I can go on if you're interested -

The Chairman: What page in the part III are you reading from?

Mr. Wex: These are my notes. It was just a speech we had given somewhere recently where we tried to make a comparison of before and after.

The Chairman: Would you mind circulating it?

Mr. Wex: No problem.

The Chairman: Fine. Go ahead.

Mr. Wex: Would you like me to continue?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Wex: The expenditures on water monitoring will have decreased from just under 10% of the program budget to considerably less than 5% over the decade, as the provinces assume greater responsibility for managing their resources.

Water management expenditures will have decreased from just under 10% to considerably less than 5% and the focus will have shifted from water management to water conservation.

Research in 1988, aside from air quality and wildlife, represented less than 10% of the program budget and was devoted almost entirely to water management issues. By 1998, that proportion will have increased to about 15% and will be directed to a much broader range of ecosystem components and interrelationships.

Lastly, by far the largest relative increase will be in environmental protection, which is risk assessment policies, strategies and enforcement, where the proportion of the program budget will have shifted from approximately 5% to about 15% over the decade.

.1005

Supporting technology development will remain relatively constant at under 5%, but the emphasis will shift somewhat from internal efforts towards building a private sector capacity.

So that indicates the shifts we will have made over that 10-year period, incorporating into that amount the Green Plan infusion of money that we received.

Mrs. Payne: So I would assume then from what you're telling me that in the areas where decreases have taken place in federal spending and it has devolved to the provinces, in your negotiations and discussions as such the federal department is satisfied that on these programs, the ones that are crucial and such things as water management, the level is maintained to the satisfaction of the federal department.

Mr. Wex: Again, I can give you the numbers from a design point of view. To get better assessment as to what's happening in each of these areas, my preference would be that you put those questions to the ADMs responsible in each of those areas.

Mrs. Payne: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft-Sloan, please.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you. I was tied up in a caucus meeting and apologize for being late.

I wonder if you could answer some questions in regard to Action 21. I apologize if this is something you've already covered. I'm curious as to what the status of the program is, what the objectives of the program are, and what is the future of the program over the next few planning years.

Mr. Wex: We can give you the numbers on Action 21. We'd be happy to.

In terms of where the program is going, again, when Mr. Lazar testifies in a few weeks he'd be the one to give you a better feel for the direction it's taking and the new emphasis.

We have so many grants and contributions... I'm actually looking for the numbers right now.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So in the overall estimates, Action 21 would be listed under grants and contributions then. Is that correct?

Mr. Desroches: It is on page 130 of your estimates book, under the list of grants and contributions, under ``Greener Society''. I'm looking for a -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Oh, it's under ``Greener Society'' then. How is it categorized under the main breakdown?

Mr. Wex: Under ``Greener Society''.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It's not under grants, okay.

Mr. Wex: Under grants and contributions on page 130, the third business line is called the ``Greener Society'', and that's where you would find it. So that's the capacity building.

The ``Greener Society'' business line is that whole thrust, the whole investment in building the capacity of Canadians, whether through technology, information, know-how, community involvement, partnering...

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.

Mr. Desroches: You're asking for numbers, perhaps looking at future profiles, if I understood your question. We forecast the same level for both 1997-98 and 1998-99 at $5,194,000. So there have been some earlier reductions made to the program, but it's not one that's targeted for the future.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What was the amount again? I didn't hear you.

Mr. Desroches: $5,194,000.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.

Mr. Desroches: As I mentioned, it's the same amount as we have planned for the next two fiscal years after 1996-97.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is a program where communities have to raise as much money or more in order to participate.

Mr. Desroches: That's right. We're looking for some matching of funds.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Do you know what the average contribution is?

Mr. Desroches: I'm sorry, I don't have the information here, but if I were to take a guess I would say about $30,000 to $40,000.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are these are mostly remediation and clean up?

Mr. Desroches: Again, I don't have that information.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Desroches: But we'll make sure that when Mr. Lazar comes out he has that information.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Sure. That's not a problem.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, please.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel a little more able to ask this. I want to ask a question about the Arctic environment.

I was fortunate enough to go to Yellowknife and Inuvik, and as you are probably aware, we are hoping to establish an Arctic council by summer. I noticed in looking at the estimates of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the Green Plan money has run out from them in certain projects. So I appreciate my colleague's question.

.1010

Can you discuss at all the current and future initiatives and amounts of money to restore the Arctic environment and the costs associated with meeting the government's objectives in this region? We've done some considerable talking about it. I'd like to see that some funding is available or present in some department, and since the Minister of the Environment co-chaired the conference in Inuvik, I would think we have some responsibility in that regard.

Mr. Wex: I think the fairest way to deal with the question is to refer it to the appropriate officials. There are a few who are covering this file and they'll be in a better position to answer. We're here today simply to go through the estimates and deal with the details of the estimates.

Mr. Finlay: Are there any estimates set aside for such things as the long-range pollution plan, atmospheric pollutants, and persistent organic pollutants? Does the environment ministry have no responsibility for the AEPS program?

Mr. Wex: If we went through the business plans, I'd prefer it if one of our colleagues spoke to it. For example, as you go through a healthy environment with our first business line and what we're doing in terms of our science and the science stations that we have there and the whole question of toxics and the long-range transport of toxics, there's no doubt that the Arctic is a very important part of the programs of the department.

It's difficult to be able to pull out a certain sum of money or to single out any one of the results throughout the book, such as hazardous air pollutants or long-range transport. Certainly there is expenditure of resources and effort that will benefit the Arctic, but the experts in those areas would be in a better position to be able to tell you what it is specifically we're doing on hazardous air pollutants that will be of import to the Arctic. That's why we're hesitant to go too far into this discussion.

The Chairman: I refer my friend, Mr. Finlay, to the section on the Arctic on page 68, but it does not contain figures. As Mr. Wex is indicating, you may want to ask that question when the next meeting takes place.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Desroches: There's also a reference on page 56 about our responsibilities for the Arctic.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle, please.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Gentlemen, thank you for appearing this morning. Perhaps this question is not relevant to you gentlemen, but if it isn't we'll defer it to a later time.

In 1995 the Auditor General was somewhat critical of the government's ability to deal with the whole issue of contaminated sites as it pertained to PCBs. The projection by the Auditor General at that time was that it would cost about $2 billion to do this. We have here on page 17 notice that there's a complete elimination of funding for the contaminated site on PCB clean-up and destruction.

When you put these things together, how can you rationalize the objectives of a government and other senior department officials towards those objectives, given the economic climate we're in? How do you rationalize spending money in one department rather than in some other department? I realize there are people like ourselves who guide you somewhat in those directions, but who wins out in the end, the politicians or the senior bureaucrats?

Mr. Wex: That's a fundamental question of governance. If it isn't the elected officials, we're in a lot of trouble.

To answer the question on the specifics of the PCBs, which was alluded to earlier by Mr. Asselin, and on why our preference is that Mr. Clarke answer the specifics of the question, there is some history as to what the program was funded to do when it was set up. It was a sunsetting program. There was never an intention that it would go on forever and ever. Government only funded it for a specific period of time.

You will more than likely want to pursue with him what the objective was when it was set up and whether that was satisfied, and then look at it in the light of the AG's comments on his assessment. We are getting into the merits of the program and the rationale for the program, and I think he'd be better situated to respond to you.

.1015

Mr. Desroches: I have a quick comment on the PCB program. That was a program of about $2.4 million a year. The decision is that all the individual government departments are responsible for their own PCBs. They have to make sure they're brought to facilities like Swan Hills for destruction. There's not a central budget for this thing any more. We ourselves at Environment Canada are incurring costs to bring the PCBs we have in storage to Swan Hills and to destroy them. It's out of these estimates here, the $550 million. Part of that is devoted to that.

So every department, and I know that DND and Public Works and Government Services are some of the big ones, is spending some of its own funds to do that. That's the question of where the moneys are going to be spent.

Mr. Wex: We obviously haven't done justice to your more philosophical question, but we might pursue it over coffee if you like.

Mr. Steckle: What about the last part of my question? Are you prepared to make a statement about that? You haven't addressed it; maybe you didn't hear that part of the question. Who wins out in the end?

Mr. Wex: Obviously we're attempting to address the issues in a transparent, open way so that value for money and accountability are first and foremost. If we don't succeed, we all fail. We're trying to bring the information so that you can question properly and see whether the priorities that ministers have judged...whether the standing committee wishes to offer guidance in terms of the priorities that were made, where the investments did occur.

Mr. Steckle: You're sort of speaking around it, but I asked a question. Who wins in the end, the politicians or the bureaucrats, when it comes to policy directions in terms of the priorities?

Mr. Wex: Bureaucrats exist simply to serve -

Mr. Steckle: I'm not being critical. I'm only asking a question.

Mr. Wex: You're asking a fundamental question of governance, and I'm answering that in a regime of ministerial accountability, it has to be the ministers and Parliament that remain supreme.

Mr. Steckle: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: If the politicians knew what they were doing, there probably wouldn't be a problem. That dichotomy perhaps emerges when politicians don't do their homework. We can't blame the bureaucrats for that.

Before launching a quick second round, I have a few questions from the chair, gentlemen, if you don't mind. Do you have for us any figure on lapsed funds for 1995-96?

Mr. Desroches: I would take a guess that we're at about $14 million to $15 million. We have until about mid-May to close the books, but for 1995-96 the lapse is about that.

The Chairman: How does that compare to the lapsed funds in the previous fiscal year, and how do you explain it?

Mr. Desroches: The lapsed funds in the previous fiscal year are shown on page 3 of the estimates. They were significant, $42 million. The main estimates for 1994-95, in the first column, were $737 million. Our total available for use at the end of the year was $20 million higher, probably through supplementary estimates that year and the amount we lapsed.

How do we explain lapses? One thing is that the government has brought together what we call the operating budget regime, whereby we're allowed to transfer up to 5% of our operating budget that is lapsing at year-end into the subsequent fiscal year. So we don't have this mad year-end spending rush that we would have. The $15 million is roughly 2% to 3% of our operating budget, so there was no rush to spend it. Even if it lapsed, it would be available in 1996-97 over and above these estimates here, over and above the $546 million. They will come through a supplementary estimate.

The Chairman: Do you compare well to other departments in terms of lapsing funds?

Mr. Desroches: That's something I don't know. I don't know how we compare to other government departments. Certainly restraint has hit us. Certainly we have tons of pressures and priorities, and all of the managers are trying to manage their best. Like I said, we certainly do not aim to lapse funds, but we don't have this urge for last-minute spending any more because we'll be able to carry it over.

The Chairman: That's 5%.

Mr. Desroches: We're allowed to carry up to 5%.

The Chairman: But you lose 95%.

.1020

Mr. Desroches: The 95% we will have spent.

The Chairman: You have lapsing funds of $14 million to $15 million.

Mr. Desroches: Yes, which is about 3%.

The Chairman: You can carry 5% of that into the next fiscal year.

Mr. Desroches: No, up to 5% of our budget. We're going to carry over only 3%.

The Chairman: So you are within the 5%?

Mr. Wex: Yes, exactly.

The Chairman: The next question has to do with losses in person-years, as it used to be called. How many people have you lost as a result of the cuts this year?

Mr. Wex: It was around 660 in the past year, if my memory serves me right.

Mr. Desroches: On page 120 of the estimates we show that we went from 5,185 last year to 4,637. So it is 548.

The Chairman: Over the last two fiscal years you have lost 2,000 people. Is that correct?

Mr. Desroches: No. We've lost 1,100. We've gone from 5,700 -

The Chairman: How many people do you expect to lose between now and next year?

Mr. Desroches: Another 300 to 350.

The Chairman: What budget reduction do you expect to have between this year and next year?

Mr. Desroches: As I mentioned, our planning number right now for 1997-98 is $500 million. So we would be down by another $46 million. That's not in the estimates. I'm quoting numbers for this.

The Chairman: So you plan to go down to $500 million.

Mr. Desroches: By $500 million in 1997-98, and by $479 million in 1998-99.

The Chairman: And by that time, 1998-99, you will have lost how many people?

Mr. Wex: About 1,400.

The Chairman: As a total.

The provinces are planning to do more or less the same. Are you monitoring the cuts in the environment being carried out by your provincial counterparts?

Mr. Desroches: We are not. But Mr. Avrim Lazar is monitoring the budget situation, yes, and through all of our regional offices. Naturally there are a lot of partnership agreements. Yes, they work hand in hand with their provincial counterparts. I don't have here the information about the provinces.

The Chairman: Would you like to comment on the losses that we've incurred in Ontario?

Mr. Desroches: I'm sorry, that's information I don't have, the impacts of that. Mr. John Mills, our regional director general for Ontario, or Mr. Avrim Lazar... I'll make sure that I note those questions for them so when they appear...

The Chairman: Mr. Wex, you were kind enough to take us through the breakdown of the action plan, which is extremely well done, the five columns under ``Reducing risk'', the two columns under ``Emergency preparedness services'', and the three columns under ``Greener society''. I find that arrangement to be very helpful and certainly most informative.

What worries me is the content of some of the boxes, what seems to me to be their lack of accuracy. I'm sure that you cannot comment on that, and therefore I will not raise the accuracy with you today. But, through you, I would like to warn your colleagues that when they appear they will be asked about some of these boxes. I will give you just a few examples.

In the first box, the result is Canada's greenhouse gas emissions being stabilized at 1990 levels by the year 2000. I have some serious doubts about the accuracy of that.

I'm referring, Mr. Finlay, to this document.

.1025

The next one has to do with a third column, where the result indicated is the second box, saying environmental laws are applied fairly and in a consistent manner. When we travelled with the CEPA committee we certainly got quite different input by the people who appeared before the committee, including your own officials. That seems to be quite a far-fetched claim.

On the fourth column, the third box reads ``Canadian Biodiversity Strategy implemented''. We would certainly like to know more, because we are not aware of any implementation of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. But maybe there's something we should know and it hasn't yet emerged in our parliamentary consciousness, so to speak.

There's another box in the same column as the first one, where a claim is made about endangered species being recovered and conserved. It may well be so, but we would certainly like to know more.

Another box is in the second column, and that will be the last one, because it becomes a bit of a monologue here. It speaks of Canada's obligations on the Basel Convention, OECD guidelines, and the Canada-U.S. Agreement on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste being fulfilled. That's not what we have learned from newspaper clippings.

I somehow feel obliged to apologize to you, because this may sound like stuff that's completely outside the realm of your know-how. As I said earlier, I'm just conveying to you these concerns about the accuracy of the claims in the hope they can be removed when your colleagues appear before us. Otherwise, I can only congratulate you on the design of this particular approach and the methodology you have adopted.

Mr. Wex: I would just like to make a comment to explain what we were trying to achieve with the document. The results are long-term results. They're generally -

The Chairman: The tense is the past. If that is the case, then the tense should be the future. Excuse me. There are certain rules in grammar.

Mr. Wex: That's why it's dangerous to read a document out of context, in a sense.

The Chairman: What is the context for this context?

Mr. Wex: The context is always the part IIIs. This simply a communications tool to explain the part IIIs. One has to go back and say what is the issue, what is our commitment to Canadians, and what is the action.

The action, for example, is that the overall objective at Environment Canada will be to increase emphasis on...and it goes on to explain what we're trying to achieve. So the result we hope to achieve by the year 1997-98 - and the new one will talk about the year 2000 - is that at that time, at the end of the period of this business plan, environmental laws are applied fairly and in a consistent manner. What you will find and you will want to ask people questions on is how are you going to get there? Do you have the right deliverables and the right strategies that will enable that result to be realized?

So above that phrase -

The Chairman: Mr. Wex, you may want to add that as a footnote to this paper, so the reader will know how to interpret the boxes.

Mr. Wex: We'll do that.

The Chairman: Otherwise you may run the risk of misleading the public and parliamentarians as well, and I'm sure you don't want to do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: I will try to stay within our order of the day with those officials. I see that last year's total estimates for the department came to $629 million. This year, the total amount is only for $546 million, a difference of $83.5 million. Given this decrease, do you intend to stay within the budget allowed by the government? Are you expecting a surplus or a deficit at the end of the fiscal year?

.1030

Also, what means of control does the Department of the Environment have to make sure that the overall operations you have to manage will stay within the approved budget?

[English]

The Chairman: Could we have short replies, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Desroches: We will stay definitely within our approved budget. We are talking now of the Main Estimates, but there will probably be some supplementary estimates.

How do you manage the budget of a department? We always try to act in order to spend it all. From 500 to 600 managers with spending authority have the responsibility to administer the budget. How are they supervised? At the end of each month, they have to present us with their spending projections so that we know what the situation is. Some projects have too much money and others not enough. There is a constant redistribution of money, but according to the Financial Administration Act, we are not allowed to spend more than the authorized amount.

Mr. Asselin: If you realize a couple of months before the end of the fiscal year that a program has not cost as much as projected and that the official is scurrying to spend the money left in order to justify the following year's estimates, do you have some means to prevent him or her from spending money needlessly? It happens at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal. Departmental managers hurry to spend the money they have been provided with in order to justify their budget for the next year.

Mr. Desroches: A manager and his or her supervisor negotiate a budget on the basis of the work plan. This is not a historical budget. I explained earlier that the department could now transfer up to 5% of its budget to the following year, but it doesn't have to.

Yes, there are some means of control within the department and managers must account for their expenditures and their various projects. Is it possible to redistribute part of the money? We could decide to give priority to such and such a thing one year and choose something else the following year. Those things happen regularly. But spending like crazy at the end of the fiscal year is a thing of the past.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, one short question please.

Mr. Forseth: I'm following up on a little bit of what the chairman was saying. I'm looking at this document entitled ``Environment Canada Action Plan 1995-96''. Inside under the column for toxics there is a box; it reads: ``national contaminated sites program completed by March 1996.'' That's the second box from the bottom. Well, we're in April of 1996. We're looking at... Do we have a program completed? Then it reads: ``The results of that will bring all federal PCBs in storage destroyed and high-risk contaminated sites cleaned up.''

As far as I know, we have PCBs all over the country and we have a national disgrace like the Sydney tar ponds, an issue that gets into the press. But I understand we have equivalent things all over the Maritimes from former industrial processes. There's a lot to be done. That box almost implies that all PCBs are destroyed and that everything's all cleaned up. Can you describe that a little bit more?

Mr. Wex: I'd prefer to ask Mr. Clarke to give you the explanation when he becomes before you.

Mr. Forseth: Okay. In the part IIIs can you lead me through the pages where the activities and offices of Mr. John Fraser are described?

The Chairman: No. They're not in here.

Mr. Forseth: They're not in this at all.

The Chairman: That's in Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Forseth: Okay. Is it described at all, even in -

The Chairman: No, it's not.

.1035

Mr. Desroches: I don't believe it is.

The Chairman: It's another department.

Mr. Forseth: All right.

The Ministry of the Environment is spending money, but you talk about revenues. Just describe again what are the sources of revenue.

Mr. Desroches: Revenues could be from charging for publications or for access to weather information, or from people wanting to use our facilities. It could be from the services we give to other government departments or parts that are breaking off now. To NAV CAN, for instance, we're providing aviation weather services. We recover from the Canadian Coast Guard for the work we do on ice reconnaissance. People approach us who want to use one of our facilities or have some samples tested in one of our labs. We will charge for that.

Most of it, you'll find, is recoveries from other government departments, and most of them are probably related to the weather.

Mr. Forseth: A further question relates to page 130. We were talking earlier about the Action 21 program. The forecast spending in 1995-96 was $5.3 million, and projected for 1996-1997 is $5.1 million. In actuality in 1994-95 it was nothing, so under that description it is a new program, but I understand there was somewhat of a similar program in previous years, perhaps under a different name. Could you describe that? This looks as though it's all new money and a new program, but really it's not.

Mr. Desroches: It is not. You're right. If you go to page 131, ``Moneys not required'', you'll find it was called the Environmental Partners Fund in that year.

Mr. Forseth: And that was $6.2 million.

Mr. Desroches: Yes, and then the other one, Environmental Citizenship, right under that, was $1.498 million.

Mr. Forseth: So we can see a trend of reductions in spending from $7.6 million down to$5.1 million.

Mr. Desroches: Yes.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: On page 45 of the blue book, the key enforcement priorities for the department are to improve compliance and strengthen capacity. I'm just wondering if you could point out where the funding for compliance and enforcement and personnel and other support is located, and what's been happening and what is projected in those areas.

Mr. Desroches: If you go to page 25 you'll see the third one is enforcement compliance. In 1995-96 it was $16.128 million. It is still $16 million in 1996-97.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: And the full-time...?

Mr. Desroches: The full-time is 169 to 163.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.

One of things we heard over and over again with CEPA was there were not enough officers in the field around enforcement and compliance, and we have a reduction here. You can't answer a policy question.

Mr. Wex: I do know that on program review this was one of the areas the minister of the day insisted we not cut. This $16 million will cover a number of things. It will cover voluntary and regulatory enforcement as well, so it may be that those six FTEs or the few dollars came out of another area related to the whole question of compliance and enforcement.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What's the percentage breakdown between voluntary and regulatory enforcement?

Mr. Wex: Mr. Clarke would have to give you the details of his program.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have a few others.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The things the chair and Mr. Forseth were pointing out under ``Information, Products and Services'', the state-of-the-environment reporting - the first box there - this funding has been cut totally. Is that correct?

.1040

Mr. Wex: The organization has been cut totally.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So how will these functions be maintained?

Mr. Wex: Again, there are certain things we do that will carry on. Environmental indicators, as a program, are critical to providing benchmarks for where we are as a country. Getting that information to our science community is something that, as a program, carries on in any event. Again, when Mr. Slater comes, he'll answer to the details of how he's delivering on that result.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What about the cuts to scientific personnel? Where would those be located?

Mr. Desroches: If you go to page 119, that's where we show you by category.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Right, scientific and professional.

Mr. Desroches: That's right, and it's by subcategory under there.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Where are most of the cuts occurring? Are they in regional centres? How is the science work distributed throughout the country? Does it occur in regional centres? Does it occur at the head office in Ottawa?

Mr. Wex: It is largely done in the institutes, which are in the regions.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Which particular institutes are taking the biggest hits?

Mr. Wex: Again, it would be Dr. Slater who would be best positioned to give you the details on that.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could I just turn now to the Green Lane? How long has this been up and running? Where do you have the budget figures on the Green Lane program?

Mr. Desroches: How long has it been up and running? It was started within the last fiscal year. The budget figures I don't have, but we can certainly can get them for the next meeting. It's not something that's very expensive. Obviously, it's the feeding of the information and the making sure that the information available on Green Lane stays current. So it's really linking the different products that we have in the department and making them available, and having somebody to review them to make sure that what's not current any more disappears. It's not a huge expenditure item.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So there are no estimates that have been prepared or identified for the preparation of the material or information that's going on the Green Lane. The Green Lane is purely a data input or processing function.

Mr. Wex: It's a distribution network. We're preparing the information in many cases in any event. It's a way of communicating out the information that we're preparing.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I guess the problem is - and again this isn't something that you can answer - that if there are cuts to the state-of-the-environment reporting, and if there are cuts to the scientific institute, there will be less and less information for the Green Lane to carry.

Mr. Desroches: It is also a way by which we can reduce our costs. It's less expensive to make something available electronically than it is to print it. I think it's also more environmentally sound. Very little is produced in the department for the purpose of putting it on the Green Lane. They are things that we have, that exist anyway. With the Green Lane, our cost is really the cost of a server so that not only Canadians, but people from all over the world, can access the information that we put out. It's also a way by which our scientists can exchange with their colleagues in other countries and can have access to the research that is happening in other countries.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It's a shame that the cost-effective aspect of the Green Lane - whatever is saved there - isn't being put into some of the institutes and the state-of-the-environment reporting so that there's actually something going out on the Green Lane.

.1045

Mr. Wex: On page 41 the reference shows that notwithstanding your concern, which is a legitimate concern, we still have the best Canadian Internet site. It won an award for that, I believe. As the minister said last week, you can cut some resources, but you're not cutting your responsibilities. You have to find better ways to do the job. The Green Lane has certainly been a success story for the department.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Which I totally acknowledge. I think it's a terrific idea, because certainly one of the aspects of CEPA that we looked at was trying to make information more accessible to people so they would know what is going on. This is a marvellous tool. The problem is if you have nothing to put on it, it's an empty highway.

The Chairman: Could you explain to us this aspect of full-time equivalents? You did explain it at the beginning, and that was quite clear. But you have on page 25, 17.99 full-time equivalents. We just went over it as a result of Ms Kraft Sloan's questions. Is that included in the full-time equivalents on page 13?

Mr. Wex: Yes.

The Chairman: So 4,637 includes 17.99.

Mr. Wex: Yes. This is for the business line called ``A healthy environment''. Of the 5,000-odd employees in the department, about 1,600 are devoted full time to the healthy environment business line.

The Chairman: And the other 2,400, where are they broken down?

Mr. Wex: They're in the other business lines. So we would take you to page 71. That's your safety from hazards, largely your weather program: 1,300 there.

Mr. Desroches: And pages 83 and 111.

The Chairman: Yes. All right.

Mr. Forseth: I have one supplemental question in follow-up to that. When I look at pages 12 and 13, that chart, it's nice to see a schematic outline like that, with numbers broken down under responsibility, and on the same page it was nice to have the subset of FTEs associated with that there on the same page. We see where people are distributed.

The other thing I want to ask about FTEs is this. We know a department is always prepared to give up FTEs, but if you have any descriptive material about whether the loss of FTEs is real bodies or just loss of FTEs... Typically a manager knows what's coming down in the budget and he will deliberately not fill the FTE positions. It's called ``recruitment savings''. So a department will very gladly give away five FTEs, but they're not losing any bodies at all, because they were vacant chairs that were never filled in the first place. Can you give me some indication about real bodies leaving, rather than just losing positions?

Mr. Desroches: Naturally as positions become vacant you might want to decide not to replace them and you would cancel one of the surplus notices you'd given to other staff. So you're quite right. I believe under the 1,400 or so person-years, FTEs, the department's going down, there will probably be between 1,100 and 1,200 real people who are going to leave. The rest are vacancy management, if you want.

The Chairman: Before I thank you, it might be worth while to register one observation for future part III plans.

.1050

It might be helpful to parliamentarians, and perhaps to you as well, to have pages that would allow one to see a trend upward or downward in terms of full-time equivalents, of full budgets, and of data that would allow us to see what is happening over a period of at least two, if not three, years.

For instance, in a future issue page 12-13 would also include the two preceding fiscal years. Then one could perhaps get an idea of trends, rather than focus attention on a very narrow - but very important, nevertheless - fiscal year. Maybe you are doing it in another book. I don't know.

Mr. Wex: In the strategic outlook document that was sent to you last year - so this was on last year's data - we put in one table, which was the trend on resourcing. We didn't do FTEs. We certainly could add that to this year's departmental outlook document, which then could initiate the discussions with the department.

The Chairman: At times it's very difficult to bring to committee all the documents, and the plan would seem to be a natural place for bringing out trends, where possible of course. I am not asking for or suggesting something very elaborate, but on basic items perhaps you might want to consider that.

Mr. Desroches: If you're interested, we have a graph that shows the dollars over the last ten years and the full-time equivalents over the last ten years. It will show that as money was available for the Green Plan or new policy initiatives we went up, and now, because of program review, we're going down. It shows where we -

The Chairman: That would pertain to Mr. Forseth's last question, for instance. I would like to get that, please, if you can make it available.

On behalf of my colleagues, whom I thank for their interventions, I thank Mr. Humber, Mr. Desroches, and Mr. Wex for their presentations this morning. We look forward to the continuation of this very educational and informative exercise.

May I ask you, colleagues, when you come to the next meeting of our committee with the department, namely on Thursday morning, to bring along the documents in your office so that you will be better equipped to ask questions. The research branch has prepared a very interesting paper with questions to be asked, so you will be well equipped.

On Thursday we'll start again at 8:30 a.m. Keep in mind that the notices are no longer delivered on a green sheet but only by E-mail and therefore the screening of E-mail becomes vital.

This meeting stands adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page