Evidence of meeting #21 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, I think my colleague, Mr. Mokhtar, wants to provide one comment.
Director General, Financial Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
I'll see if I can address the question.
In the opening remarks, Ms. Ruta mentioned that some of our programs are sunsetted and therefore our funding fluctuates. This is one of those programs where the decision was that there was funding until 2006-07 and subsequent decisions were going to allocate new funding for its continuation, or for continuation under another form. That's why these numbers look like they're dropping.
The other thing I'd like to bring to your attention is there is about $14 million in supplementary estimates for climate change initiatives. A very big proportion of that funding is for paying the salaries of the people, because the decision was that nobody will be affected until the final decisions are made. So if the numbers look small, very few of the staff who are working on these programs have been told they have been funded and will continue to be funded until the end of this fiscal year.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
I have a question about the clean development mechanism. I'm trying to find it in the mains here, as to where that spending line appears. Can you direct me? Does it not appear under Environment Canada?
Acting Director General, Domestic Climate Change Policy, Department of the Environment
No, there's no spending associated with the clean development mechanism or joint implementation in Environment Canada's programs. That comes in the programs of other departments, particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Great.
This may be similar to that question then. In the 2005-06 public accounts, this is money that was spent on various non-profit organizations around the country. I assume it's not CIDA or DFAIT; this is ours. This is money to...well, some of them are international and some of them are domestic. I'm looking for efficacy of dollars spent. There's quite a bit of money here--grants to the Canadian Federation of Municipalities is a very large one, but there are also many, many smaller groups.
Let me first establish that this is within your spending before I ask questions.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Yes, it is.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. In terms of value for money, what type of auditing process do you use in going through how this money is spent, and what indicators do you use as to whether it was successfully prescribed?
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Thank you very much for the question.
Generally speaking, I think the whole government is looking at trying to make sure we get the best performance out of our grants and contributions programs. I think the results of the blue ribbon panel on that will be coming forward in December.
Part of our expenditure restraint does deal with grants and contributions. With the exception of moneys going through to foundations--of which you have mentioned one--which was a large amount last year, we don't have any this year. Typically, for the past few years, we've been spending about $70 million in grants and contributions, and right now in the mains we are trying to manage that resource within $47 million. We have a few class contributions that are broadly stated, and we are looking, as a priority over this year, to try to better align the performance of these contributions and establish priority setting so that it does align, in the best way possible, with the government's priorities.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Again, back to that in terms of evaluation; $100,000 is given to UNEP in the United States—in New York, at the UN. What evaluation criteria did we use as to whether the money was well spent? I guess my specific question is, if we petition the department, could we have a specific look at any one of these different projects and the money that went out the door?
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Absolutely, you can ask the question and we can provide you with further details on that.
I'll ask Mr. Mokhtar to provide further details, but a lot of our grants and contributions are not a large amount; a lot of them are a small amount, going to a wide variety of stakeholders. But there are some that are a bit bigger than others.
In terms of a contribution—and we are respectful of the Treasury Board guidelines on that—we did go through and the Treasury Board did agree to the broad objectives of the class contribution programs we do have. But on any of the specifics, we could surely provide you with additional information as you require.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, I'm sorry, your time is up. That is a list the members, again, would probably wish to have.
Mr. Harvey.
October 31st, 2006 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Ms. Ruta and all the witnesses, thank you very much for being here today. I am pleased to see you.
You spoke a little about the trusts and foundations established by the Canadian government. Significant amounts have been paid into these foundations. Where do we stand?
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
I have a short summary here. For the 2006-2007 fiscal year, we are not planning to make any payments to any foundations. Last year, we paid $150 million into the Green Municipal Fund mentioned by Mr. Cullen.
I could add that from 1999-2000 to 2005-2006, the average was $122 million. In 2000, it was only $12 million; in 2001, it was $112 million; in 2003-2004, it was $175 million; and in 2004-2005, it was $100 million. This included an investment in the Sustainable Development Technology Canada foundation.
I am giving you those figures from memory. I will ask Mr. Hani Mokhtar to provide details. However, according to the government's budget and priorities, a transfer is effected for straightforward objectives, but not on an ongoing basis. It is very limited, but the amounts are rather large.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I am more concerned about monitoring. After giving the money to these foundations—and that's $150 million each time—we need to know where the money went and what was done with it. I would image that there are ways of checking where we stand.
In Ms. Gélinas' testimony before the committee, she said that it was difficult to monitor spending and to identify the actual results.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Thank you very much for your question. Here again, I would ask Mr. Mokhtar for the details, if there are any.
These amounts related somewhat to the basic rules and principles governing our contributions and grants. Ms. Gélinas and the Auditor General mentioned that more was needed. Nevertheless, the foundations as such are not at this time part of the federal government's portfolio. We are therefore rather limited in how far we can go.
As to the evaluations, we can check whether any have been done. Perhaps Mr. Mokhtar can provide us with further details.
Director General, Financial Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
In 2004-2005, towards the end of the year, a number of concerns were raised about one of these foundations. The Department of Natural Resources and we took it very seriously and carried out an evaluation. The group representing the foundation came and had to give us an explanation about the terms of our contract with them.
In fact, all of the agreements specify that Canada has the right at any time to audit the books, etc., and we invoked this clause. The group came to explain themselves and we were satisfied with the answers given. Consequently, we have the right to do it and we do it from time to time.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
There was talk of a $6.4 billion-total amount paid to the environmental foundations and trusts. Did that turn out to be the correct amount?
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
An amount of $6.4 billion?
Director General, Financial Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
Not to my knowledge. The amounts we are citing here represent our share, and for most of them, there was another share paid by Natural Resources Canada.
Hence the figure could be doubled, but I'm not sure that it was $6 billion?
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
There is another thing. It may not necessarily be correct to say that carbon credit purchases were made. However, there was international aid to various countries to determine whether it would be possible to reduce carbon emissions.
Would you be able to give me the details about these expenditures? Was money sent to Panama, China, India, and just about everywhere around the world? We might be speaking of approximately $100 million to $130 million.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Thank you for your question. I will try to answer it accurately and clearly.
For discussions of carbon, I will continue in English because I am more familiar with the technical terms in that language. I would simply like to specify that with respect to
...emission credits for Kyoto per se, we have not spent any money on that. As for carbon offsets, my understanding is that Environment Canada may have spent some very small amounts. I can't speak for other departments. But these would not qualify for emission credits under the Kyoto Protocol.
This would be part of our due diligence on programs and managing conferences. If we wanted to show that we were keen on being green, we might try to tabulate how much, in terms of effects on greenhouse gases, certain conferences might take and then try to purchase some offsets on carbons. But these cases have been very few and far between. If memory serves, we have not done much at all in this regard. Offsets are not emission credits, as we understand them, for Kyoto.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I know that these are not pollution credits. I am rather speaking of expenditures that were made to support or set in motion the very principle of carbon emission exchange rights between countries. The purpose of my question was not to ask whether we had obtained carbon pollution credits, but rather whether we were able to evaluate whether the amounts in question were in fact spent and spent effectively. What I am mainly wondering about is the degree to which the expenditures were effective.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Thank you for the question. From memory, and—I will ask Mr. Mokhtar if he has more information to provide—the amounts we are speaking of are not very high, and I would be surprised if research has been conducted into measuring the effectiveness of the investment. I believe that it may represent a few hundred dollars, or at most a few thousand, but no more than that.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I will check into it myself.
As for the Montreal Summit held almost a year ago, do you have information about the total expenditures committed?