ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

• 1545

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.)): I'd like to begin by calling the meeting to order.

Let me begin by welcoming the students from the Forum for Young Canadians who are observing us today.

This is April 22, Earth Day. I'd like to wish everybody a happy Earth Day.

There's one item of housekeeping that's not on the agenda. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to cancel tomorrow's meeting. That would in effect move it to Tuesday. There are a couple of reasons. We're not sure that we could have enough government members here to discuss the report, and I understand the report has been delivered to the offices just this afternoon. So I don't think we have enough time to deal with the report.

Mr. Asselin, are you agreed with cancelling tomorrow's meeting?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Will the meeting that was to be held this afternoon take place and is the intention to cancel tomorrow's meeting?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We're talking about tomorrow morning, when we were scheduled to look at the enforcement report. But I'm not sure if there will be enough Liberals available, plus we just got the report.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, things aren't looking good for tomorrow. One has only to note that this afternoon, only one government member, with the exception of the vice-chairman who is chairing the meeting, is present. Do Environment Canada estimates interest only opposition parties? There are members from the Official Opposition present, as well as from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, and barely one government party member. We had intended to review the estimates of the Department of the Environment. We have a quorum and we must proceed but there is only one government member present, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I appreciate that. As you may know, the regular chair plus Mr. Charbonneau are travelling. That's why they're away. As for the others, I don't know. Notwithstanding that, we're going to go on with today's meeting on the estimates. I didn't think it would be an issue, but I was looking for permission to instruct the clerk to send out notices cancelling tomorrow's meeting, which was scheduled to begin discussions of the enforcement report.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you'll agree that this would be an opportune moment to table a motion. We might even go so far as to table a motion of censure against the government, whose members are neglecting their parliamentary responsibilities by not being present at an important committee like this one where the estimates are being studied.

• 1550

[English]

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Do you want me to break quorum?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): No, we're going ahead with today's meeting. The alternative is that people can show up tomorrow at 9 a.m. and not know when you come whether there's going to be quorum to proceed with the discussion of the enforcement report. If that's what your preference is, we can leave the meeting as scheduled, but I'm trying to act in good faith here and advise you there may not be enough for quorum and a meeting may not occur. I think in terms of trying to respect everybody's time I'm anticipating the meeting won't go ahead, and we'd be better to acknowledge that and informally cancel it now.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: You are talking about tomorrow's meeting?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Knutson): Yes.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I would like it recorded that we are cancelling tomorrow's meeting because we will not have a quorum due to the absence of too many members from the governing party.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): It's not that simple; it's that the chair is away. Mr. Caccia, as you know, has played a major role in the enforcement hearings, and Mr. Charbonneau is away. I think there's a sense that we want to write the best report possible, and waiting until next week, until two of our members return from travelling, I don't think is too much to ask. Now we're into semantics on how we're labelling it, but I'm trying to be frank with everybody here and suggest that we want to cancel tomorrow's meeting.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): The point is that in order to make a decent report for all of us, we need to have the players. We need to have the people in front of all the witnesses. A number of government members cannot attend, a number of opposition members cannot attend, so logic decrees we just move it until next Tuesday so we can all do a decent job on the report. That's all we're asking. We're not asking for anything onerous at all, it's just moving it until Tuesday so we have the people there to do the job and do a decent job so we can get a report that all on this committee agree with.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mrs. Kraft-Sloan and then Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to agree with Mr. Gilmour. The problem we'll have tomorrow is yes, of course we can have a meeting, but what will happen is on Tuesday, when all the people who were here during the hearings come to committee, we'll be starting all over again. If the member wants to have a meeting tomorrow where we sit and have a discussion, we will begin the discussion anew on Tuesday. Personally, I think that's a waste of time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I was just going to add, Mr. Chairman, that the government can always supply members on this side. It's just whether the members are regular members of this committee, and he full well knows that. To do the best job on the report for the subject matter you're engaged in, I think it's only fair to all the members of the committee, including yourself, to have all of the players who are normally present here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Is there agreement then to cancel tomorrow's meeting?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): The clerk has provided me with a script that I should read and I'll do that now.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(6), votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 of the 1998-1999 main estimates under Environment were referred to the committee on February 27, 1998. We're now dealing with votes 1, 5, and 10 pursuant to an order adopted by the committee on March 31 concerning its program for April, May, and June.

Today's meeting on the 1998-1999 main estimates is devoted to an information briefing on the structure and organization of Environment Canada and a review of the department's report on plans and priorities, formerly known as part III of the estimates. In the fall we will likely be reviewing the department's progress report. We've been informed that the minister is available to appear on Wednesday afternoon, May 6, the day after some of us will be returning from Calgary, and it is suggested the members would like to reserve their questions of policy for the minister.

Today's witnesses will brief us more on a technical or factual basis; they're not allowed to offer opinions. We welcome Mr. Rodney Monette, assistant deputy minister, corporate services, and Cynthia Wright. Lady and gentleman, would you like to begin?

• 1555

Mr. Rodney Monette (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Environment Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a presentation that consists of about 12 pages or so. The presentation will probably take about 25 or 30 minutes, and if the chair agrees and if the committee agrees, I propose that we go through that presentation. It focuses a little bit on the department, the organization of the department, and how we're structured.

I would also refer to the part III document and walk the members through that document, and also give some additional information on our budget.

So, if the chair agrees, that would be about a 25- or 30-minute presentation, if that's acceptable.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): One of my colleagues would like you to perhaps abbreviate it. Can you reduce it, say, to 20 minutes?

Mr. Rodney Monette: Sure, I can certainly do that. No problem.

The two documents I'll be referring to are a presentation that the clerk is handing out.

[Translation]

Our documents are available in both official languages and the clerk can give you the French version.

[English]

I will also be referring to the part III document.

I'll refer committee members to page 1 of the document, just to say at the beginning that this is a technical briefing on our part III document. As the chair has indicated, the minister will be available on May 6, with departmental officials, to discuss the policy issues that members may wish to raise.

Turning committee members to page 2 of the document, you'll see we have provided an organization chart. The document I'm referring to is the one the clerk has handed out. You'll see there are five assistant deputy ministers of the department and five regional directors general. These individuals of course report to the deputy minister, who reports to the minister. I'll just walk you briefly through the various functions and areas of responsibility.

The ADM policy and communications, Avrim Lazar, has responsibility for policy issues. That would include things such as climate change, relationships with provinces, and furthering the international agenda.

Below that you will find the ADM for the environmental conservation service, Karen Brown. That particular area is basically our wildlife conservation and ecosystem management with wildlife.

Below that you'll find a box for our atmospheric environment service—that's basically the weather services—and that's Gordon McBean. That area is essentially headquartered in Toronto, Downsview.

Below that one finds the environmental protection service, and François Guimont heads up that particular area. That area looks at things such as toxics, pollution, smog, and so forth.

Below that is me; I'm the financial officer for the department.

On the right-hand side you will see the five boxes representing the five regions in the department. I wanted to point out to members that each one of those regions has all of the functional program areas that are on the left. So, for example, if one looks at the RDG for Atlantic, Garth Bangay, one would find in Garth's area policy and communications, environmental conservation, atmospheric environment service, environmental protection services, and corporate services.

As well, if one follows down through the other regional blocks, Mr. Gauthier is in Quebec, John Mills has the Ontario region, Jim Vollmershausen has the prairie and northern region, and Art Martell has the Pacific and Yukon region. Each of those regions, as well, would have all of the program responsibility areas in them.

I'd like to point out to the committee as well that we have attached to the back of the presentation a more detailed organization chart, and that has phone numbers and a little bit more information that committee members might find useful if they're trying to contact the department.

I'll now turn to page 3. We wanted to identify that the committee has raised a number of concerns in the past and that we have worked to improve our report this year and to respond to the concerns of the committee.

The first significant concern the committee identified is that there wasn't enough information on our program review reductions. We have included in the document this year a little bit more information on that, and in this presentation I will identify some additional information on that area as well.

The second area raised by the committee and particularly the chair last year was the accountability for business fines. The committee and the chair expressed that there didn't seem to be a good accountability below the deputy minister level, and we were asked to do something about that.

• 1600

We have in fact worked on a new framework. That framework isn't in place this year, but it will be in place next year. I'd be prepared to explain that more during the questions, if the committee wishes. We do feel that will provide a better accountability and address that particular issue.

The third point has to do with the fact that the new documents, particularly this planning document, didn't contain enough performance information, and we have undertaken to provide some performance information in the document this year.

The fourth area has to do with wording of results. The committee had some concerns—in particular, I recall that Mr. Steckle had some concerns about the wording of that information on results. The wording would appear to suggest that we had achieved certain things when in fact we hadn't, so we tried to fix that up and clarify that somewhat.

The next item is the identification of partners. One of the committee comments was that we should be more careful in identifying the partners we're working with on these various initiatives, so we've undertaken to do that as well. Lastly, we were asked to identify the terminology and acronyms that one finds in the documents, and we have added that portion to the document.

I have one final comment on that. We did share with the Treasury Board Secretariat the comments of the committee. Of course the Treasury Board prescribes the format for these documents, so we did pass those on.

If I can refer the committee to page 4 of the presentation, you'll see that there's a structure for part III of the estimates. The basic idea here is that there's summary information at the beginning, and as one moves down through the various sections, there's more detailed information.

If I may turn committee members to the actual part III document, which is the blue document in front of you, you will see on pages 1 through 6 of the document a summary that includes the message from the minister. Moving through pages 2 and 3, there's a summary of key plans and priorities. Then on pages 4, 5 and 6, you'll see some detail on the various results we would hope to achieve.

If I could suggest to committee members that for an individual who is busy and doesn't have a lot of time, that's a pretty good 5- or 6-page summary, where you'll find a good overview of what we plan to do as a department.

Beginning on page 7 in the English document and page 8 in the French, that particular section of the document provides a departmental overview. It goes into a general overview of the mandate roles and responsibilities of the department.

For example, looking on page 7 in English, and page 8 in French, you'll see there is a section on mandate and roles. If one flips the page, you can see the objectives of the department and then the context within which we work, and some of the strategic considerations that we try to respond to as a department. Flipping the page again, you'll see information on our response to the various things and the strategic considerations we try to respond to.

Finally, at the very end of this section, which would be page 12 in the English and page 14 in the French, one finds a financial table that shows our overall spending estimates for the department for the year.

Moving onto section III of the document, again one moves into more detail, and this is where we identify the plans and priorities of the department by business line. One finds that on page 13 in the English document, and on page 15 in the French, there is for each business line a presentation of about four or five pages that provides additional details on our goals, our roles, our resource adjustments, and the risks that we deal with. Then flipping over onto page 14 and 15 in English, and to page 16 and 17 in French, you'll find various long-term goals.

I won't go into more detail on that, Mr. Chair, in the interests of time, but there is a section of about five to six pages or so for each of our four business lines, and I will spend a little bit more time on our business lines in a moment.

On section IV, I wouldn't propose to go into in a lot more detail. That's on page 35 in English and page 39 in French. That simply has more detailed information for members on our finances, on our people, and on some of our regulatory initiatives. It includes, for example, the glossary and the acronyms that I mentioned previously.

• 1605

So that's a very brief walk through through the part III document. I'd pleased to answer questions on that later during the question period.

Mr. Chair, I'll refer back to the presentation again. I'm on page 5 now of the presentation that was handed out.

You'll see a presentation of our budget over time. Starting with 1989-90, you'll see that we had a budget of about $583 million. That increased significantly into 1994-95, largely because of our Green Plan funds. Then you'll see that that decreases pretty steadily until 1998-99, when it pretty much straightens out. That's basically because of our program review reductions. You'll see that our budget is reduced by about 25% or so.

I'll flip to page 6 now, where you'll see an overview of our budget. That basically divides our budget up into the categories that we use to track our resources. The salary budget is about $282 million, which is 49% of our budget. Our operating and maintenance budget is about $240 million, which is 41% of our budget. Our capital budget is $25 million, which is about 4% of our budget. Our grants and contributions budget is $32 million, which is 6% of our budget.

You'll see just below the pie chart that there's a little table that identifies what we get voted from Parliament as a certain amount of money. This upcoming year, that's $511 million. There's also revenues that Parliament allows us to respend, which is about $68 million. So that's an overall expenditure authority of approximately $579 million.

Turning to page 7 now, if I may, that shows our human resources or our people by our business lines. You'll note that about 73% of our folks are outside the capital region, while about 27% are inside the capital region. Looking at our various business lines, “A Healthy Environment” has about 37%, or about 1,600 people. “Safety from Environmental Hazards” has about 33%, or 1,400 people. “A Greener Society” has 13%, or almost 600 people. Then there's the administration component, which is about 17%, or 700 people.

You'll see at the bottom of that page that we've broken out the people resources by our various regions. In looking at that, I should point out to the committee that the Ontario figure includes the headquarters for our weather service in Downsview. In fact, if you remove the headquarters for the weather service and some of our headquarters for our environmental protection service, the Ontario figure is in fact about 10% for the regional operation. That's just by way of explanation as to why we have 30% in Ontario outside the national capital region.

Let's flip to page 8 of the presentation. This gives our total budget by our business lines. As the committee knows, it's the business lines that we use to request the resources from Parliament. It's how we have to account for how we spend our money and how we have to describe how we're using our money in our performance.

Looking at the pieces of the pie, you'll see the blue piece is about 40% of our resources, which is for “A Healthy Environment”. The yellow piece is “Safety from Environmental Hazards”, which is about 35% of our money. “A Greener Society” is about 14% of our budget. Then there's the management and administration piece, which is 11%.

I'd like to flip to page 9 now to provide you with a little bit more information on each of the business lines. On page 9, you will see our first business line, which we call “A Healthy Environment”.

The basic intent of that business line is to better understand the environment and what Canadians need to do to protect and conserve the environment. Examples of that would be: engaging partners to restore and conserve areas such as the Fraser River Basin, northern rivers, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River, and Atlantic coast; research and development on atmosphere, toxics, water, and wildlife; identifying and controlling dangerous chemicals that threaten air and water quality; protecting migratory birds and habitat; taking action on plant and animal species that are endangered or at risk; and undertaking inspections and enforcement actions.

• 1610

This particular business line has reduced in expenditures by about $80 million, or 26%, from 1994-95 to 1998-99. And those reductions were accomplished through reducing the work we're doing on acid rain, nitrogen oxides, and other compounds; sunset of the contaminated sites clean-up program and the federal PCB destruction program; reductions in migratory bird wildlife research; and reductions to funding of university research. That tells you the things we're no longer doing.

You may recall from when I looked at the blue book that we had a section on pages 4 and 5 that talked about the things we are doing. This will say what we're not doing. If members wish to find out what we are doing with our money, then you would refer to that section in the blue book that would be in support of our budgets and identify what we are doing.

Flipping to page 10 of the presentation, we have business goal two, safety from hazards. That business line is designed to keep Canadians safe from environmental hazards. That would include things such as public forecasts, marine forecasts for weather, aviation forecasts, warnings of severe weather, our responding to 44 million requests for weather information and assessment of spills.

You'll see in our resource adjustments section below that this area has reduced by about $46 million in the five years since a program review has begun. That's about 19% or so. Those reductions have been accomplished through closure of weather offices and consolidation of forecast production of weather in various centres; reduction in the number of climate observation sites; reduction in the number of water quality and quantity monitoring sites; automation of weather observation sites; and a different approach to dealing with spills, with more emphasis on prevention.

Again I would say that it's important to identify that those are some of the things we're not doing. To find out what we are doing, the blue book clearly sets out what we plan to do with the funds that are available for us.

It's worth noting that in this weather area we are looking at various ways of improving our service delivery. The minister has requested that we undergo a consultation with our clients over the next few months, and we are doing that at this time. We're looking at ways of improving our service. As you'll know, in the weather services a lot of our revenues come from our larger clients, and of course we have to keep them satisfied if we want to keep them as good customers.

Turning to page 11 of the presentation, we have the “Greener Society” business line. The objective of that business line is to get people engaged in environmental issues. Examples of that would be supporting community initiatives; developing and transferring environmental technologies and expertise to industry; working with the provinces and other countries on sustainable development issues; environmental reporting; and also having a greenline available, which is on our Internet.

The resource adjustments in that area: we have a reduction of about $41 million, which is 34% over the last five years. Those reductions we've accomplished through elimination of the five-year comprehensive state-of-the-environment report; privatization of the Eco logo; reducing some of our community outreach programs; and reductions in grants for technology development.

Again, to find out what we are doing with the money that's available, of course that is on pages 5 and 6 of the blue book, which we've just recently walked through.

Page 12 of the presentation, and that's the last page, our management and administration component, is basically the support to the department. That would include things such as finance, administration, information technology, human resources, legal services, and so forth.

One of the big issues we're dealing with right now is our year 2000 problem. That's a significant issue for a lot of departments right now. Our expenditures in this area have reduced about $28 million, or 31% after 1994-95. That's basically in proportion to the reduced needs of other areas of the department as we've gone through some of our reductions.

Mr. Chair, that is the presentation. I hope I've done that in the time allotted. We'd be pleased to respond to any comments or questions or observations that you or the committee might have.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you very much for that. I think you did a good job. I'd also like to commend you. I think this is a more pointed presentation than we've seen in previous years. Just briefly looking at the blue book, I think you're to be applauded for taking the committee's recommendations and incorporating them into your report.

We'll begin with Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'd like to echo the chair's comments. Your presentation has a lot of meat in it. And I thank you for shortening it so that it offers us time for some questions.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Thank you.

• 1615

Mr. Bill Gilmour: One of the initiatives in the new budget was the $50 million a year for the global warming and climate change budget. This was on top of an already existing $100 million, and another $20 million was added on to that, so we're at $120 million. Now we've added $50 million. We have $170 million that is targeted toward climate change. That's a fair bit of change.

What kind of research, background, and documentation can you provide this committee to rationalize why that kind of money should be spent? And can you tell us where it's going? I understand the natural resources department has split some of that.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Can you make a few comments on that point?

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes.

The amount of additional funding that has been provided this year for climate change is $50 million on top of the base levels of departments' existing budgets. The way that is split up this year is that $40 million of the $50 million will be going to Natural Resources Canada and $10 million will be going to us.

The particular business line that money appears in—and I'm going to ask my colleague Cynthia Wright to help me out with this one—is identified here.

Cynthia, can you identify for the committee the business line that funding is found in?

Ms. Cynthia Wright (Director General, Corporate Management and Review Directorate, Environment Canada): It's in the atmospheric change line, under healthy environment. So if you look in your blue book on page 20 in the English, the healthy environment is broken down by components. You can see how much we're spending on atmospheric toxics, compliance, enforcement. What you see is there's a jump from the 1997-98 number to the 1998-99 number. That reflects the $10 million for climate change, largely. There is a bit of a reduction due to the end of the program review that is also factored into that change there.

So the $10 million is there, but in fact the way it's going to be managed across the government is the climate change secretariat that's been formed is overseeing the whole new initiative on climate change, and Environment Canada effectively becomes the steward of this $10 million, which will largely be spent on public outreach and science. It won't be spent internally to Environment Canada.

That's why, if you want to see on the organization chart, who has what money—on page 38 and 39 in the English—it has a reference under the ADM of corporate services, Rod Monette. That's where the money is parked, in a special fund to ensure that it is actually managed through the climate change secretariat. There's a footnote to explain that.

Mr. Rodney Monette: If I may, Mr. Gilmour, you asked a very good question about how would we know if we've done the right thing with the money and will we have the performance measures in place to be able to report back to the committee—have we done the right things with the money. The expertise on that will be with my colleagues who will be coming in a couple of weeks to talk with the minister. But certainly we've been tasked to ensure that we do have a performance framework in the department and that we have identified the results that are expected from that particular money.

I'd have to apologize that I can't give you the details on that at the moment, but I'm sure my colleagues, when they come with the minister, would be happy to give you a little bit more information on what those goals are, how the money's going to be used, and what one would expect to see as an end result with that funding.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'll save my questions until then.

In another area, on the contribution side, we have a contribution to the Fur Institute of Canada.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Last year it was $205,000. That's jumped to $350,000. That's nearly doubling. Can you explain what that is, and why the near doubling?

Mr. Rodney Monette: I'll ask Cynthia to handle that one again, if I may.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: There was an intent to reduce that. This is in the area of humane trapping. There was a discussion among ministers: Foreign Affairs, I believe, with Treasury Board, PCO, Environment Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs, and some other departments that have a role in there. There was a decision to continue funding, and again the money was put in Environment Canada's budget to manage that.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What does it do?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: It's for the development of humane trapping, methods of more humane trapping.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I understand that, but I'm just.... You know, $350,000 is a lot of money to develop a painless trap, I suppose. Is that basically what we're talking about?

• 1620

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Yes.

Again, if you want more detail about how it's being spent, that's in the ADM of environmental conservation—Karen Brown.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: But it is spent externally to the department. We don't do the research on humane trapping, in other words. That's why it's a contribution.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Maybe you could take a note of this and ask that they send a two-page memo.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes, we would be pleased to do that.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: We've all watched what the sealers are doing there, and they're anything but humane. I would be most interested to see why their budget has doubled, whether it's just a movement of money from one department to another, or in fact what we're getting.

Mr. Rodney Monette: We would be pleased to.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: On the Montreal Protocol, $2 million, the question I'm asking is are we getting a bang for our buck? This has to do with ozone-depleting substances, but a number of countries are not on side. Has this budget increased or decreased? Is it something we're tied into that we can't get out of? Where are we at with that?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: I believe it's the same amount of money. There was an extensive report that could be made available to the committee that looked overall, internationally, at how successful the Montreal Protocol has been. There's a Canadian component to that report that could be made available to the committee.

I think overall it's showing that it has been quite successful in terms of its objectives to develop alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, and particularly to transfer those alternatives to the developing nations.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. The problem is, it just transfers it offshore to other countries that aren't part of the protocol that basically produce these substances. Is it addressing that issue?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Exactly. The funds in the Montreal Protocol are specifically for aiding developing nations to adapt and to take on new technology.

As I recall, and I'm not the expert on this area, there is quite a high sign-on rate to this particular convention with the developing nations. That particular fund goes to fund technology transfer to those nations.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay, thank you.

Finally, on the enforcement issue, on which this committee has heard quite extensive evidence—it was what, 3%...I don't have it in front of me—is there any move within the department to target more money towards enforcement? I recognize that this committee has yet to produce its report, but initially.... Is there any move in that direction?

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes, Mr. Gilmour. The minister has asked that we review the enforcement area. I can report to the committee that it is an area where we didn't reduce the budgets through our program review reductions. That was held steady, so that was protected through the program review reductions. As I mentioned, the minister has asked us to have a look at that and to come up with an appropriate response. That's the limit of my expertise on it.

Certainly when my colleagues are here, François Guimont, who I believe has appeared before the committee previously, could give you a more adequate response on that. But I can say it is being looked at, and it's certainly something we have protected in the past.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Unfortunately, enforcement lost money, as the sunsetting of the Green Plan, but that's another issue.

Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: In your plan, you say that $282 million will be allocated to salaries for fiscal 1998-99. I would like to know how many employees are covered by that total payroll as well as the amounts allocated to salaries in the previous years, particularly in 1997-98, as well as the amounts forecast for the years to come. Will the status quo be maintained? Will you have to reduce personnel to catch up or to maintain the same budget, to the detriment of public service staff? We have heard various witnesses testify for some time about various issues. The problem is that the Department of the Environment is setting an increasing number of goals but intends to reach them with an ever-shrinking personnel. If one looks at a flow chart such as this one one is led to think that it doesn't make sense; you are everywhere and it is impossible not to be. There are far more people than one would have thought possible.

• 1625

In light of the public service cuts, have some of these boxes been merged or eliminated or did you start tightening your belt here, at the top, or did you reduce staff in the field? It is all well and good to pass laws, to sing people to sleep and mouth nice words, but in practice, what happens to people in the field? Certain Environment Canada offices are being closed, as well as some weather offices. In short, there are virtually no services being offered in the field anymore, or practically none. We don't see Environment Canada people anymore. Where have they gone? Probably to offices, somewhere in the flow charts. I am not in favour of passing laws and saying nice things when I know that in practice, concretely, the ordinary public servant will foot the bill rather than the one who is in one of these boxes here.

I'll refer to an example even though it does not involve the federal government. When the Quebec Health Minister said that health expenditures had to be reduced he sent out a message to the regional health boards. To make ends meet, a hospital administrator will eliminate 3, 10 or 15 beds, but he keeps the same number of secretaries as he had before the budget cuts.

Do you think the same kind of situation prevails at Environment Canada, which has this nicely decked out flow chart? I am told that there are no additional staff members in the field, that supervision is inadequate and that Environment Canada does not intervene often enough on certain issues because it does not have the necessary personnel.

Employees who retired, took early retirement or left their jobs have not been replaced. It has been noted that in certain cases employees left their job two or three years ago and still have not been replaced, so that the manager of a given budget envelope can have a certain leeway. I agree with the concept of giving yourself some elbow room, but not if you can no longer provide the services your clients have a right to expect. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Rodney Monette: I think there are a couple of questions there, and I will do my best to work through them and answer them.

I can assure the member from the start that client service is something we really, truly care about. When we go through the kinds of decisions that we have over the last four or five years where we have made reductions, it's always been with a view to doing our absolute best to maintain client service. In fact, one of the things, as I mentioned earlier, we're doing now is we have a fairly broad-based consultation on our weather service. We're crossing the country and we're undertaking a consultation with our clients, just to make sure they're happy with the kind of service we're providing.

To get back to the key point, yes, we have had a reduction in our person-years and the number of people. We reduced about 1,400 people over the last four or five years. It is true that we have had to take some tough decisions to ensure that we're maintaining our service base. If I may take a step back for a moment and go back about fifteen years, one of the things committees would often tell us was that they would look at our estimates and they would see that we started programs and that programs would be layered one on top of the other and they never saw these programs finishing. We had comments from parliamentarians and members and others asking why we never go back and look at all those things we did before, and why don't we ever look at the programs we put in place and figure out the programs that don't make sense any more.

• 1630

I would say that the process we've gone through in the last four or five years has forced us to go back with some good judgment and to look at things that maybe shouldn't be done any more. I would hope that when one looks at program reductions and programs that aren't continuing it would be in the context of that's the right thing to do, that any business operating or any company or any organization would go back and say what doesn't make sense any more, what are the things you don't want to do any more, and if it doesn't make sense don't do it any more. We have done some of this, and it is true that there are some things we're no longer doing.

In terms of our organization and how we're structured, as I mentioned to you, and it's on page 7 of your presentation, almost three-quarters of our people are outside of Ottawa. I think if you look at most government departments that's a pretty good ratio for people outside Ottawa, for people actually out doing things and the rubber hitting the road, so to speak. I think if you consider that and if you look at how we're structured you'll see that the vast majority of our people are out doing our programs. It's not the management or the overhead; it's actually people out doing things.

I hope I've caught most of your questions. I'm sorry, I may have forgotten one along the way, and if I have I'll come back to it. But I think those were your main points, sir, and if I haven't covered them off properly, please bring me back and I'll try to cover them again.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns is to make sure that the government apparatus has tightened its belt in this flow chart, in comparison to the previous year or other years, but did not do so on the backs of employees in the field in order to keep the same total payroll.

[English]

Mr. Rodney Monette: You have looked at our organization chart and it identifies the managers. For each one of these managers, for example, if I were to look at the director general for prairie and northern region, there would be several hundred, perhaps a thousand, people who are actually working on programs who would report to that position. So there are a lot of people reporting to the managers who are out doing the work.

The structure we have has, as I mentioned, three quarters of the people outside Ottawa doing the work that needs to be done. I hope I have answered the question appropriately. We could provide you more details, if you wish, of how people are organized through the regions to give you a better idea as to what they're doing. The vast majority of the effort is on service delivery and servicing our clients. And I can say that the department really does concern itself with what our clients think of us and whether we're doing a good job. It's something we truly and genuinely want to continue to improve on.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Is it normal that a field employee who retired two years ago still has not been replaced? Should you not have acted immediately to fill that position?

[English]

Mr. Rodney Monette: I'm not familiar with the particular case you're referring to, but it does happen sometimes that we have situations where we don't staff quickly. Generally, we try to staff as quickly as we can. I think if you look at our organization you'll see that probably 90% to 95% of our positions are staffed permanently with permanent people and there are some where for various reasons we don't staff.

I'm sorry, I don't have more information on the specific incident you're perhaps familiar with. If you provide us that information we would be pleased to look into it for you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Monette, I've asked the members not to ask questions that solicit an opinion. Your explanation of program review in somewhat benign terms I think gets us into a debate, which I think we've agreed not to enter into today.

You have ten minutes, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for those instructions.

• 1635

I wanted to ask you some questions about science. On page 7 of part III of the estimates, it says:

Science is the foundation of Environment Canada's leadership, practices, services and regulations and is essential to achieving results in all its roles in addressing the priorities outlined in this report.

Then on page 11 you talk about how sound science is the cornerstone of action and that Environment Canada is committed to sustaining rejuvenated scientific capacity, etc.

I'm a strong advocate of good science and I appreciate the work Environment Canada scientists have undertaken over the years on any number of issues. Most recently, I think the contribution that Environment Canada atmospheric scientists have made to the Canada country study on biodiversity is outstanding. I'm going to do a little plug for Environment Canada on that, because I've been looking at what's going on in the world. We're one of the few countries that has actually done an impact study.

Having said that, I am concerned about what is happening with science capacity within Environment Canada and where it's going. I noted these two little sections here on pages 7 and 11. When I look through the documents, I don't see science glaring out at me. I see a lot of programs and I realize there is science work attached to those program areas. Could you tell me how Environment Canada is looking at sustaining and rejuvenating its science capacity and where we might find some of this information in the documents you've given us?

Mr. Rodney Monette: Cynthia, would you address this one, please?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: There are a couple of points to address in it.

When you read the document—it's true that science is all over. Sometimes I think it's hard for people to poke out what is actually the research going on behind that. Throughout the document we indicate the scientific activity in terms of risk assessment of toxic substances, the science behind the climate change issue, the science needed on ozone and fine particulate matter. That's described, if you get a chance to read through the document.

In program review, the research area was reduced somewhat, but by a lesser amount than the average across the department. We approached it by looking at areas where we no longer needed to do the research. People who are familiar with the department over many years may recall that we had a large eutrofication program that was very important when the Great Lakes had a problem. That's the kind of thing that was stopped in program review.

What you'll see now are the areas of clean air, climate change, and stratospheric ozone that are still being maintained. So the research capacity in the department is recognized as being still very important and very tied to the policy agenda and the priorities of the department.

Specific to science management, because I think people recognize that has been a challenge—the loss of capacity as the civil service ages and the need to be able to recruit new people in a quick and expedient way, and I think that comes to a previous point—the department is doing a lot of activity on science management that is described in the section under management administration. We're doing that with the entire government—Treasury Board, Industry Canada and a number of other science-based departments—so that across the department we have better recruitment programs, better training programs, better development for the researchers, particularly as they lead into management, and better relationships with the universities for training.

Mr. Monette mentioned the study that is under way on the alternative service delivery with the atmospheric. Through that study we've been identifying the need to work more closely with universities in that area to continue to develop that expertise, because Environment Canada is the major employer of atmospheric scientific capacity, and we must have a very close relationship with universities to continue that development.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you have an idea of how many scientists actually work for Environment Canada—in numbers?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: I know that the total research budget is about $120 million. In terms of science, we could certainly get that for you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: I don't want to give you a number, because I might not be right on it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I understand. If you have people who are scientists but are also in management, it starts to get kind of complicated.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: We can exactly separate out researchers, people in the laboratories.

• 1640

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I appreciate the fact that after program review you probably lost programs or individual scientists, but when you are making a statement that you want to sustain and rejuvenate and the fact that you perhaps have an aging group of science workers within Environment Canada, you have to think of new recruitment methods and things like that.

When you start to identify some of the number of scientists that you currently have, where are you thinking of increasing those numbers? As well, how are you planning to go about doing that? I don't know if it's possible to identify areas where there are some gaps that you feel are very important to be covered off. That would be really useful as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): You still have a few minutes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

In your overall budget, where you talked about getting $500 million from Parliament, there was a figure here—and I apologize if this was explained earlier—that says “revenue Parliament lets us spend”. That's really nice of us, isn't it? What is the total revenue generated? What are the sources of the revenue generation? And why doesn't Parliament let you spend more than $68 million?

Mr. Rodney Monette: The revenues in the department roughly total $75 million. I'll first answer the question of where we get it from, and then perhaps I could address the question of what we can and can't spend.

The biggest portion of our revenue comes from our clients at the weather service, the atmospheric environmental services. The biggest one would be for NAV CANADA, which is well over $20 million. DND and coast guard together account for about another $20 million, so we're up to about $40 million. We provide some services to other government departments, such as DIAND, NRCan, and others, which probably amount to a another $8 million to $10 million. So we're up to about $50 million or so. The difference would belong to a whole range of small programs. We do have some details on that in the part III document, but that's the biggest chunk of it. If you wish, we can provide you with more detail on that difference.

The money that Parliament lets us spend is money we take in. Because it relates to a specific program, Parliament has decided that we have the authority to re-spend it. In a sense, that's an incentive to be a good department, to have a good management structure in place and to have good client service, because if we're not good to them they won't want to do business with us. So it's almost a bit of an incentive that is built in for us.

The $6 million or $7 million we can't spend doesn't relate to a specific program, where that incentive wouldn't make as much sense. We can provide details on the $7 million to you at a later time if you wish.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's great. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): This is my first program. The congratulations that my colleagues have given you.... In my brief experience with the committee and with Parliament, I feel like we're congratulating the captain of the Titanic. We all know where we're going, and we have a nice vessel, but our environmental problems are out there and we're headed straight for them. The scientists tell us and we know it, but in our budgets we don't seem to want to change our direction. We're still on this program review.

Let's change the course. We send our lifeboats out now. The Kyoto one—we sent it over to SS NRCan. Harmonization—you know where that has gone. Fish habitat, that's gone. Atmospheric stations and research, just because they're not weather stations, with the whole aspect of the scientific and research knowledge of it, just because we don't generate revenue off it doesn't mean we need to cut those. But your reductions in program review.... Why couldn't there be additions? Did somebody give you a scalpel? We'll give you a black pen and you can redesign a blueprint here.

• 1645

The question that comes to mind with this budget is about contaminated sites. Who's budgeting for contaminated sites? We know that an arms deal was struck with the Arctic early warning sites. The tar ponds are another issue of heavily contaminated sites. There are radioactive contaminated sites all over the country. There are persistent organic pollutants all over the place. Is somebody costing this out and putting part of your estimates...? Some future budget or another department will have to pay for it.

But the program review, I challenge either the department or Parliament to.... If there are program reviews, this committee should take part. Our committee is called environment and sustainable development, so that Kyoto lifeboat should come back here, because that is a sustainable development program. It is to sustain our future, not to give resource industries a one-window shopping area if they want to cut or have access to international markets. Our environment minister would be a broker for international deals. That's not what it's intended for. It's to protect the integrity and environment of our country.

That's my perception in my short experience. Change direction. Let's stop program review now. Our finances seem to be in order. I've seen the headlines. I'm sure you read the papers. We're okay. Let's challenge ourselves to improve our environment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do you have a specific question with regard to the estimates? The issue of—

Mr. Rick Laliberte: He's picked up on the contaminated sites. I didn't see this side. Is it part of the estimates? Where is that lumped in that you were to include that in budgets?

Mr. Rodney Monette: Mr. Chair, a number of policy issues have been identified. As you have suggested, the minister will be here to respond to some of those issues in a couple of weeks. We will note them and ensure the minister is aware they are of concern to you.

Regarding program review, that was a policy decision, but I'm pleased to say that program review is now finished. Our budgets are level now and consistent out into the future. Mr. Laliberte, if you look at page 5 of the presentation you will see that in 1998-99 our budget is $579 million. It's $575 million next year and $573 million the year after, but there will be some minor adjustments. For all intents and purposes, it is straight-lined out.

Regarding your question on contaminated sites, as I mentioned in the presentation, we did drop a contaminated sites program through program review. That was a program that looked at what we call orphan sites. Those are sites where nobody else seems to.... Cynthia will correct me if I'm wrong on the orphan sites. Those were sites where we were going in and cleaning up because we couldn't identify specific responsibility.

We are continuing to deal with our own contaminated sites and we are showing leadership on that. As well, Treasury Board has sent out a policy to all government departments. They now have to report back to Treasury Board and presumably inform committees as to what is happening with contaminated sites on a government-wide basis and account for them and provide that information on a government-wide basis.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I look at your figures and at page 12, with that $6 million difference from this year's budget to the year 2000, and $6 million is a lot of money. It might be a blip in the overall budget, but those are major programs and services that could still be cut as part of your program analysis. For inflationary costs, there should be increases, not a downward trend. The cost of everything is increasing, and that should be calculated and factored in as well.

• 1650

Mr. Rodney Monette: I can say I agree that $6 million is a lot of money. Certainly we're very mindful of that. We're working now on things that have not yet completely gone through the government machinery to be approved, and they will increase that. I would expect to see that figure adjust.

But for any given year, a lot of things come in and come out. For example, the Treasury Board will advise us as to changes in the rates for employee benefit plans. That's usually an increase at some point in the year, and that might increase things. I think last year we had an increase of $9 million or $10 million in that regard. Also, for example, there might be something such as a continuation of a program we're working on that could amount to a few million dollars.

That's only to say that the numbers for future years at the moment are level but over time will move up and down. But in the big scheme of things, the budget is essentially flat. So we may be coming back to you next year, and you may see that number has gone up a little bit, but for all intents and purposes, for our planning, we consider that a flat-level budget.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I share Mr. Laliberte's frustration a little bit, because post-program review, certainly one of the personal frustrations I get when I'm presented with a collection of numbers and dollars is that that is the culprit we're trying to overcome in the larger sense. Sustainable development continually seems to be butting up against the short-term economic argument.

You have to look with enlightened eyes to see the direction we're going with this, but I would like to think that, if not this department, some department is looking at the larger issues of fuller-cost accounting.

On page 13 you list some of the outcomes of smog, ozone depletion, toxins, and climate change. Let's cost these things out. Let's make the economic argument to the accountants that these things have to be addressed. Program review perhaps inadvertently turned us into bean-counters, when really we need to now broaden our perspective a little bit. I would like to see that reflected in how our moneys are allocated.

Karen talked about science. That's a critical component. You have to be able to back up what you say. Good in-house science that incorporates the added feature of costing out these things puts us in a much stronger position.

So post-program review, I would hate to see us simply continue sailing the downsized vessel. Now that we've gone through that pain, let's take a look at what it is this department does. If these things aren't being done by Environment Canada, if the gaps are there, then the responsibility falls on us to try to fill them.

That's my initial impression, but like my honourable colleagues, it's my first time through, so I'm just trying to digest it. Do you see or sense a larger mandate for the department? Is this the department that should be educating other ministries? Maybe that's a question I shouldn't be asking.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Jordan, you weren't here at the beginning, but they gave a little speech about there being certain questions that belong to the minister.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Do you mean value judgments of any kind?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I can allow the question and the department people can tell you you're better off asking the minister, if you like.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Well, if I may, Mr. Chair, of course the policy issues would be ones for the minister, but Mr. Jordan does raise some very good points about whether we have our house in order in terms of how we're costing out our initiatives. Do we know what it costs to undertake a particular initiative? And at the end of the day, can we say we've achieved it or haven't achieved it, and this has been the cost? That's a very good point.

• 1655

As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at our accountability framework. Of course it was something Mr. Caccia raised last year—that he and the committee had some views on our accountability framework—and we constantly strive to improve that.

I would say to Mr. Jordan as well that the information in this document is at a fairly high level. We do have more details in the department. If, for example, you were to write his request, to say “Can you please give me more information on what you're spending on any of these particular areas?”, there's a pretty good chance that we could come back to you with a more satisfactory answer. This document is intended more to allow you to ask those questions of us.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's fine, but my perspective.... I'm not thinking ahead, but I'd like to see us decide what we need to do and worry about the cost later, quite frankly. So I'm not concerned about the numbers in there. The cost of doing things is fine, but I think we also need to examine the cost of not doing things. I think that's where we deviate from the traditional fiscal analysis. Hopefully we can move in that direction.

Thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I have a couple of questions.

On page 5 of the handout, the nice bar graph—I take it that the person who put this together wanted to give the impression that overall, to look at the end of the 1980s going into the beginning of the twentieth century, our budget really hasn't been cut. I don't want to impute motive, but that's what I suspect. You didn't take into account inflation, so it's not corrected in real dollar terms. In actual fact, ten years' worth of inflation is not inconsequential, so there would be presumably at least a 15% cut.

I'd like to suggest that just presenting this without some kind of footnote somewhat misrepresents the facts. I don't know if you want to respond.

The other thing is, leaving out the time period between 1990 and 1994, were the bars higher than $763 million?

Mr. Rodney Monette: No, they weren't. In fact, at one point when we were preparing the presentation, we had them in, and it got a little too long, so we took them out, but we can certainly provide you with them. Basically, you have kind of a curve up towards 1994-95 as the Green Plan dollars come into play. The 1994-95 year would be the highest year—the peak of the mountain, so to speak.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Okay. On page 20 of the blue part III report—we talked about compliance and enforcement not being cut through program review, but the numbers are going down from $18 million to $17 million.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes. Our overall budget in enforcement, since program review, has been about $17 million.

There are basically two reasons for the difference between the $18 million and the $17 million. One is that last year there were a number of people who were leaving and we had to make provision for that under the early retirement initiative. We got an extra $400,000 last year under the early retirement initiative, so that's part of that difference.

That leaves about a $600,000 difference to be explained. That $600,000 is money that wasn't spent the year before that, in 1996-97, and was rolled forward. We have a provision whereby we can roll forward up to 5% of our budget if it's not spent. We rolled forward $600,000 that wasn't spent in 1996-97 to 1997-98, and the amount of $600,000 was spent.

Our basic program budget remains at about $17 million, but you're absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman, that the forcast for 1997-98 is $18 million, about a million dollars higher, because of those two factors I've just mentioned.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Okay. Thank you.

• 1700

Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 10 of your presentation, business goal two, “Safety from Hazards”, you spent $201 million, 35% of your budget, on keeping Canadians safe from environmental hazards. You say there that you respond to 44 million requests for weather information a year. I don't have enough zeros in my mind to figure out how many that is a day: 10,000 a day? More? 12,000 a day? Is this from the public? How do you handle that many? Give me an idea of the physical operation.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: It is from both the public and private sectors. I think a lot of private sector businesses are beginning to value weather in forecasting, everything from farmers applying pesticides, to the shipping industry, the construction industry, things like that, but a lot of it is through 1-900 service. So a lot of it is through telephone services. There are numbers where you can call to get the basic forecast; it's free. Then if you want a more specialized forecast, it's through a 1-900 service. That's why we're able to accommodate that, and that's something we've had to do to be able to meet the client demand—move to more technology.

Mr. Rick Casson: So for the 1-900, there's a charge?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: There's both a free service for a basic public forecast and a 1-900 if you want something more specialized, probably if you're a farmer or in the construction industry, that sort of thing.

Mr. Rick Casson: So if there are revenues created from that—

Ms. Cynthia Wright: We can re-spend.

Mr. Rick Casson: —you can re-spend those. How much are they, on 44 million calls?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: I think Mr. Monette explained some of the big chunks of money in the revenue area, the $25 million from NAV CANADA. There's about another $10 million that is specialized services, which would be including that. The $10 million includes more than the 1-900 service. I couldn't give you the exact number.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay, but you've indicated you're looking at alternate ways of delivering that service now. Can you expand on that? What ways are you looking at?

It seems to me, in regard to that $201 million, there'd be quite a bit of room in there if you can.... We have the 24-hour weather channels now. It astounds me that 44 million people phone you every year just for weather.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Certainly this is one area that is very much technologically oriented, and as technology develops at a great pace, we have to make sure we're in a good situation to provide service to our clients. As you've identified, we get revenues from our clients, and that's a big portion of paying for that particular service.

To answer your question more specifically, we're doing a couple of things right now. We're undertaking a consultation from coast to coast with our clients to ask them if they're happy with the service, what are the kinds of things they'd like to see improved, what are things they're unhappy with, and so forth.

We're also continuously looking at ways of improving the technology. For example, we've recently put in a North American lightning detection network. We have a new radar system, Doppler radar, that basically gives better information on weather patterns so that we can provide more accurate forecasts.

I think we've just acknowledged, as we move into the 20th century and as technology develops, that this is a service that really has to focus on its technology.

Beyond that, I would say that my colleagues will be here in a couple of weeks. I'm not an expert on the weather service, but there will be expert witnesses to answer those questions for you in a little bit more detail.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay.

On page 9, business goal one, “A Healthy Environment”, one of the points, as an example, is taking action on the highest priorities of the 291 plant and animal species listed as endangered or at risk. What kinds of dollars are going to that presently, and could you maybe give me a for instance of a program you have going?

• 1705

Ms. Cynthia Wright: If you turn to page 20 in the blue book, you'll see the total expenditure in the biodiversity and wildlife area is $41 million.

The kind of work we do has a lot to do with international species, being the federal government, so there's a lot on migratory birds and species at risk or endangered species that are internationally oriented. They're crossing borders, if you will.

The kind of work we're doing in that particular area is with other partners to develop plans, first of all to assess which species are at risk, and then to determine what are appropriate strategies for addressing those species at risk, what kind of plan we need to restore them, and who's responsible, who can act effectively. With those factors we develop an appropriate plan.

If you look at some of our ecosystem initiatives, such as the Great Lakes action plan or the St. Lawrence action plan—those ecosystem-based plans—they all have a component where we've actually been working with partners to restore habitat and things like that. Some of the species we've been working on under the North American waterfowl management plan are examples, such as the black duck—species that are of a migratory nature, basically.

If my memory serves me correctly, specific to endangered species or species at risk, it's around half of that budget.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay.

When you say you're working with partners on maintaining, developing, or improving some of these ecosystems, are these partners such as Ducks Unlimited and these types of people?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: That's correct. Ducks Unlimited is a good example. They're very active with us in the North American waterfowl management plan. Other partners are the provinces, the Americans, and other conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and others like that.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do you have any results as to the success of some of these programs? Is that monitored?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Yes, it is. One of the most specific plans that's highly partnered, that has a comprehensive performance plan, and that's monitored is the North American waterfowl management plan. There are reports on that.

If you look at our performance report, last year and in each coming year we give a statement of certain species. For instance, we reported in the first performance report on the success of peregrine falcons being restored. So each time we give a performance report to Parliament, we're trying to give a bit of an indication of some of the key species and what's been happening with them.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Are there any questions? I have one.

Mr. Monette, on page 13 of the blues, four lines above the paragraph starting “Resource Adjustments”, you mention 1,700 inspections. On page 9 of the handout, in the box, the last dot, you mention nearly 7,000 inspections. Can you reconcile those numbers for me?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Actually I think there's an error in the blue book, because I think it's missing a lot of the inspection that is happening under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, the WAPPRIITA.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Maybe you could get back to us with that.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): If there are no more questions, I'll thank the officials for coming.

Oh, not so quick. Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: One of the things the Auditor General's report had identified around ozone-depleting substances was the fact that Canadians don't seem to be responding to the problem of a thinning ozone layer, and that while Environment Canada has had an education program or approaches to public awareness, different messages, and different mechanisms for that, it appears that because of the lack of behavioural change in the Canadian public, these messages may not have been properly structured or as effective as they could be.

• 1710

In the purple book, your performance report, on page 8, it said:

Meet domestic and international commitments under the Montreal Protocol and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment action plan for ozone-depleting substances by the year 2000.

I'm just wondering what actions are going to be targeted around some of the communication issues for ozone-depleting substances or for Canadians to better prepare themselves and their kids for problems with the ozone layer.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: You're talking about Canadians responding to the warnings that we give every day about what the—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Environment Canada produces the warning. It actually developed the UV index and the warning. We're working with Health Canada, but Health Canada is taking more of the lead in terms of the education of people in terms of what's more effective, such as sunscreens, clothing, and what not, and in working with dermatological societies as well.

The Auditor General did make that observation based on some polling made in terms of how many Canadians actually do something about the warnings. I think the program had only been in place for about five years when it was found that more than 50% actually do something about the warnings. When you think of human behaviour changing in a short time period, that's not unreasonable when you think of the battle in smoking and other areas. The department is working with Health Canada to try to address this to develop better communication methods, but our prime role is in the actual development of the warning itself.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, so it's not that Environment Canada works on messages to Canadians to take certain precautions when they're out in the sun.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: We're more the experts on what the level of the reading is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Health Canada can translate that into what the health risk is and then what the most appropriate strategy is for Canadians to follow to adapt to that health risk. They're more the experts on that side.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: They're the ones who provide the messages on the behavioural changes and what we should do.

Okay, thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): As for the label “Safety from Environmental Hazards”, when you look underneath that, it's really talking about weather reporting, isn't it?

Mr. Rodney Monette: A chunk of it, yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): That's all but 1% of it.

How long have we called it “Safety from Environmental Hazards”? Do you know?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: I think this framework went into place after the program review in 1995-96.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Okay.

The other thing was—I'm not sure if you can answer this—the number on our greenhouse gas emissions. Who tracks that?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: The carbon dioxide levels?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Yes.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: That is actually done through modelling based on, I believe, information from Statistics Canada. Then we convert it into information that industry provides to Statistics Canada. I think I probably should get an expert to answer that question, so I'll get back to you on it specifically. But it's a combination of Environment Canada with Statistics Canada, and it's basically modelling information.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): It's not NRCan?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: No, and it's not somebody sitting and measuring the carbon dioxide at the end of each pipe in Canada. It's based on the level of activity in certain sectors.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): So is there an update anywhere in your annual report as to what you think our greenhouse gas emissions are?

Ms. Cynthia Wright: Not in the blue book, the main estimates. Where we're at will be in the performance report.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We'll see that in the fall.

Ms. Cynthia Wright: In the fall, yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): If there are no other questions, we'll call the meeting to a close.

I would like to thank the officials for coming today. We look forward to working with you throughout the year.

The meeting is adjourned.