Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 6 - Evidence - April 19, 2016 (Morning Meeting)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:31 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Colleagues and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally, as well as government finance. My name is Larry Smith, senator from Quebec, and I chair the committee. Let me introduce briefly the other members of our committee.
[Translation]
From Montreal, Senator Diane Bellemare. To my right, Senator Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
From the rock, Senator Elizabeth Marshall, a former auditor general, so you'll have tough questions. Of course, from the West Coast in the north, Senator Richard Neufeld.
Senator Neufeld: From the rock on the other side.
The Chair: That's right. I wanted to make sure I had some different literature for that.
[Translation]
Today, we are continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.
[English]
Today we continue our study of the Main Estimates 2016-17.
From Statistics Canada we welcome Connie Graziadei, Assistant Chief Statistician, Census, Operations and Communications. Imagine Connie trying to say that quickly at seven o'clock in the morning. That would be a challenge.
With Connie we have Stéphane Dufour, Assistant Chief Statistician and CFO, Corporate Services. Welcome.
Two more officials with Statistics Canada are in the audience and can be called to the table as needed.
[Translation]
From Statistics Canada, we have Ms. Kathleen Mitchell, Director, Corporate and Financial Planning Division, and Ms. Marie-Claude Côté, Financial Analyst, Corporate and Financial Planning Division, who will also be available to answer questions.
[English]
From Polar Knowledge Canada, who are responsible for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, if I understand correctly, David Scott, President; Julie Brunet, Director, Human Resources and Corporate Services.
Finally, from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, we welcome Juliet Woodfield, Vice President, Corporate Services and CFO; and Heather Smith, Vice President, Operations.
Welcome. We thank you all for being here today with us and for helping us to better understand your request for funds stated in the Main Estimates. I understand each organization has some brief opening remarks, so if we can begin with Statistics Canada, followed by Polar Knowledge Canada, and finally the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Mr. Dufour, the floor is yours.
Stéphane Dufour, Assistant Chief Statistician and CFO, Corporate Services, Statistics Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, honourable senators. I am Assistant Chief Statistician, responsible for the Corporate Services field, and Chief Financial Officer at Statistics Canada. As mentioned, I am accompanied today by my colleague Connie Graziadei, Assistant Chief Statistician responsible for Census, Operations and Communications field.
It is our pleasure to appear today before this committee to discuss the Statistics Canada 2016-17 Main Estimates, highlight the most significant items and answer your questions.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by giving you an overview of Statistics Canada. Our organization, internationally recognized as one of the best national statistics organizations, will soon celebrate its one hundredth anniversary, since the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was established in 1918.
In 1971, following a review of the Statistics Act, the Bureau became Statistics Canada, an organization whose mandate under the act is to collect, compile, analyze and publish statistics on commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic, and general activities of the Canadian population.
Statistics Canada continually assesses its programs and systems in order to use the resources it is given to produce high-quality, useful information for Canadians. The organization is determined to provide Canadians with key information on the economy, society, and the environment, information they need to play their role as citizens and decision-makers effectively in a rapidly evolving world.
[English]
In 2016-17 Statistics Canada requested $751.5 million through the Main Estimates. Of this amount, 89 nine per cent is voting operating budget that requires approval by Parliament. The remaining 11 per cent represents statutory forecasts to cover public servants' benefit plans.
Of Statistics Canada's $672.7 million voted operating budget, 56 per cent covers the salary cost of 5,785 full-time equivalent employees. The remaining 44 per cent covers non-salary expenses such as informatics and professional services, software licences, travel costs for collection activities, postage and so on. This budget also includes the non- salary costs directly associated with the 2016 censuses of population and agriculture programs, including enumerator fees, as well as printing and communication activities.
In addition, Statistics Canada also pays the salary of 957 full-time equivalent employees from revenue generated by vote-netted cost recovery programs. In recent years cost recovery revenues have contributed between $90 to $105 million annually to the agency's total resources. A large portion of these revenues come from federal departments to fund projects that are not met by the core statistical program.
Even though the agency conducts over 350 surveys annually, it is virtually impossible to accommodate all information needs within its base budget. Undertaking statistical work on a cost-recovery basis enables us to respond to emerging information needs while ensuring that all Canadians benefit from publicly available data.
It is worth noting that all self-serve data products have been available for free on the Statistics Canada website since February 1, 2012. The movement to make standard data free to the public is part of a long-term strategy to provide users with the maximum benefit from the statistical information that we collect and produce in line with the government's open-data initiative.
We provided a deck for committee members to help with exchanges and discussion. I will refer to that deck and briefly cover key highlights as I go through the remainder of my remarks.
The 2016-17 Main Estimates for StatsCan, as I've mentioned previously, total $751.5 million, an increase of 43 per cent, or $226 million, compared to the previous fiscal year. This large increase is due to the cyclical nature of the census programs, as you can see on chart 1 on page 2 of the deck we provided.
If the census program's funding is removed from this yearly comparison, we can observe from chart 1 that Statistics Canada funding is relatively stable. That would be the blue blocks that you can see.
As you know, the censuses of population and agriculture are conducted every five years. This cycle, 2016, is the peak year for census collection, processing and communications activity.
Chart 2, on page 3, clearly shows that the greatest increase in funding occurs in year 4 of the census cycle. This explains the funding increase of $209 million for the Census of Population and $10 million for the Census of Agriculture in 2016-17.
To illustrate the cyclical nature of the census program, I would like to draw your attention to a comparison to the 2016-17 Main Estimates with the previous peak census production year 2011-12.
As you can see from chart 2, it demonstrates similar funding levels — a variance of less than 7 per cent in constant dollars during the five-year period. The small increase in the overall census budget is largely due to the anticipated growth in the number of Canadian dwellings. I would like to note that through various efficiencies Statistics Canada was able to reduce the average enumeration cost per dwelling over the past three census cycles, as demonstrated on chart 3 on page 4 of your deck.
[Translation]
I would also like to take this opportunity to correct a public misconception about our organization's overall budget. Contrary to certain reports in the media, Statistics Canada has not been subject to disproportionate budget cuts over the past years. In fact, if we set aside the funding for the census, our budget has remained relatively stable.
[English]
While there have been some reductions to the agency's budget, they have been in line with those of other federal organizations. At the same time, Statistics Canada has received new funding for projects such as the enhancement of the Consumer Price Index, and as part of the 2016-17 Main Estimates Statistics Canada will receive $4.9 million from the government for the new survey of financial security and the annual household wealth distribution tables.
I will conclude by saying that Statistics Canada takes pride in efficiently producing publicly available data so that Canadians can make decisions informed by scientific evidence. We look forward to your questions and comments.
David J. Scott, President, Canadian High Arctic Research Station (Polar Knowledge Canada): Thank you for your time today, honourable senators. It is a pleasure to be here to provide additional information in the context of our Main Estimates request for the current fiscal year.
In contrast to our colleagues from Statistics Canada, Polar Knowledge Canada will have to step back about two orders of magnitude: Our total budget request for the coming fiscal year is $18 million. We are a small micro-agency. We are less than one year old — again, in contrast to our "big brother'' organization Statistics Canada.
On June 1, 2015, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act came into force and Polar Knowledge Canada was officially established as a new federal research organization within the portfolio of the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Polar combines the mandate and resources of the former Canadian Polar Commission and those of the pan-northern science and technology program associated with the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, CHARS, that's being built at this time in Cambridge Bay.
The mandate of our organization is, first, to advance knowledge of the Canadian Arctic in order to improve economic opportunities, environmental stewardship and the quality of life of its residents and all Canadians; second, to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge of the other circumpolar regions, including the Antarctic; and, finally, to strengthen Canada's leadership on Arctic issues and establish a hub for scientific research and knowledge creation in Canadian Arctic at Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.
Polar will be headquartered at that research campus in Cambridge Bay, and we will have a satellite office here in the National Capital Region, as well as other locations across the North. The CHARS research campus encompasses three main buildings: a main research building, a supporting maintenance building and some transient housing accommodation for visiting researchers and scientists. The construction continues to be managed by our minister's department and is on track to be completed in 2017.
Key elements of the governance of our small agency include that we do report to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We are governed by a nine-member board of directors that is responsible for governance, oversight, long-term strategic direction and decisions on the annual budget and work plans of the organization.
The president and chief executive officer, who is the deputy head of the agency, is accountable for the day-to-day management and operations of the organization. As president, I'm supported by three directors: Julie Brunet is the lead on human resources and corporate services, we have a director of the science and technology program and a director of knowledge management and engagement, which allows us to mobilize knowledge for public good.
As a member of the domestic and international polar knowledge-creation community, Polar interacts with key clients, partners and stakeholder groups, and these interactions occur with individual entities as well as associations and groups within that world.
We represent Canada at two of the main international Arctic and polar-science coordination bodies: the International Arctic Science Committee and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. We also liaise with research organizations and institutes within Canada and around the circumpolar world to provide guidance for multilateral scientific projects that are relevant to Canada's interests.
All of this is in the context of our planet being an integrated system where, disproportionately, phenomena that occur at the two polar regions — north and south — have influence on what happens at mid latitudes, where most of us live. By studying the polar regions, we can provide insights into how things function at mid latitudes, including where the vast majority of Canadians live.
We maintain strong engagement and outreach to the community of Cambridge Bay, as well as to the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut and all of the North. This allows us to stay in touch with the people for whom we are creating benefits through knowledge and allows us to remain relevant to our prime stakeholder group and all Canadians.
I will mention our vision as a small, brand-new federal organization. We would like to think that Canada will have a world-class Arctic science and technology effort to support the development and stewardship of the North and will be recognized as a leader on circumpolar issues.
In order to achieve this, we are very much a strong proponent of the Blueprint 2020 initiative that continues to be sponsored by the Clerk of the Privy Council. We are trying to create a high-quality, high-performing public service to serve today's needs and looking into the future. It is essential to Canada's competitiveness in today's globalized information economy.
It also recognizes the importance of this initiative by providing a platform for transforming the public service culture to embrace innovation, to remain nimble and agile in order to adjust to changes in our rapidly changing world, to perform at the highest levels of international standards of knowledge creation and to create a healthy and respectful workplace with openness and collaboration as a keystone of how we do our jobs.
All of this is very much a forward-looking set of statements. We look forward to getting into the details in subsequent questions, but I thought it was important, especially as a brand-new organization that hasn't yet reached its first birthday, to let you know a bit about how we function and what our main objectives are.
Thank you for your time this morning.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Scott.
Ms. Woodfield, please go ahead.
Juliet Woodfield, Vice President, Corporate Services and CFO, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my role as Vice President and CFO of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, I am pleased to report to this committee on the $30.9 million the agency received in funding from the 2016-17 Main Estimates.
I have with me my colleague Heather Smith, who is Vice President of Operations.
The agency conducts high-quality environmental assessments, gathers input from indigenous peoples and Canadians and provides evidence-based information to allow our government to make informed decisions on major projects. For projects that are ultimately allowed to proceed, the environmental assessment process also identifies mitigation measures and follow-up programs to further monitor and protect the environment through a project's life cycle. The agency will use funding from the 2016 Main Estimates to fulfill this mandate.
The agency plans to allocate that $30.9 million during the following financial year as follows: First, $22 million will fund the Environmental Assessment Delivery program for agency-led environmental assessments and the environmental assessments by review panels. This program ensures that high-quality environmental assessments of major projects are conducted in a timely and predictable way, supporting economic growth while reducing negative environmental effects. The $22 million includes $4.5 million for the agency's Participant Funding Program, of which $3 million is specifically allocated to support the participation of indigenous groups in the environmental assessment process of current projects under review.
Second, $4 million from the Main Estimates will support the Environmental Assessment of Policy program, which includes the maintenance of the project lists and regulations. This program develops and promotes robust policies and practices for environmental assessments in accordance with our legislation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.
Last, $5 million from the Main Estimates will go toward maintaining the agency's internal services that support the ongoing operations of the agency's programs and obligations. This includes human resources, financial management services, information management and technology services, contracting material and real property services.
That accounts for the $30.9 million allocated to the agency from the 2016-17 Main Estimates.
I would also like to explain why the agency received some $13.6 million more in this year's Main Estimates than it did in last year's Main Estimates. This increase over last year's Main Estimates is primarily due to the renewal of agency funds in Budget 2015 related to two specific initiatives that sunset in the 2014-15 year. These funds were therefore not included in the 2015-16 Main Estimates, showing a reduction in those Main Estimates over previous years and an increase in 2016-17.
The first program that sunset was the funding related to the Major Projects Management Office. This office was established through Budget 2007 to reduce project review times and improve the performance of the federal regulatory system for major review projects. The $8 million in funding related to the Major Projects Management Office is consistent with the original funding allocated in 2007 related to capacity to conduct environmental assessments.
The second program that sunset, for which funding was renewed in Budget 2015, was related to supporting the agency's indigenous consultations. Of this funding, $6.8 million is also comparable to that received in 2007.
As I mentioned earlier, these two sunsetting funds account for the majority of the funding increase in the 2016-17 Main Estimates and will help improve Canada's regulatory framework for major resource projects and advance consultations with indigenous stakeholders.
So far I have explained the agency's expenditure rationale for the $30.9 million and the change from the previous year. I would like to take this opportunity also to explain the funding announced in Budget 2016. The recently announced budget proposes an additional $14.2 million over the next four years for the agency. Starting this year, 2016-17, these funds are planned to support the agency's robust, science-based environmental assessment processes, the evolving compliance and enforcement activities and increased capacity to undertake consultations with key stakeholders, including indigenous peoples.
In conclusion, the funds from the 2016-17 Main Estimates and funding announced in Budget 2016 will enable the agency to continue delivering high-quality environmental assessments that involve indigenous peoples and Canadians and support sustainable development.
Thank you for your time. We would be pleased to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Woodfield.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I have questions for everyone, but I will start with Statistics Canada.
I notice your numbers are going up, and you said it was because of the 2016 census and also the census of Agriculture. Could you just explain to the committee, as you go from an estimate of $456 million to $672 million, what the extra expenses are for? Is it primarily staff and you can relate that exactly to those 2016 items?
In your opening remarks you said it was cyclical. Could you give us some insight into how you gear up and gear down? That's what is happening, so I would be interested in hearing about that.
Mr. Dufour: Thank you for the question. I will start by going back to chart 2 just to illustrate what I'm going to say. You referred to the increase of staff or the increase in salaries. You are absolutely right. As we launch the census, to give you an example, as we enter the operation period, we hire 35,000 people across Canada to conduct the census. As we speak, the census has already started in the North. As you can imagine, that is a fair share of the expenses and part of the large increase that you see.
In what I qualified in the graph as year four — you can see that peak — this is when we spent 53 to 54 per cent of the total census budget that we get over a seven-year period. For simplification here, I have illustrated over five years and removed the two years because I wanted to cover the various cycles. In the last two years, we still have dissemination activities that represent about 3 to 4 per cent of the overall budget.
To answer your question about how we ramp up and ramp down, at Statistics Canada what we've done over the years — you can imagine that we have been doing censuses now for many years — we basically use our core staff and our core infrastructure as much as we can in preparation for the census. We have a census program that will basically decrease after the large periods.
We hire temporary staff when we hit the operations time. We need to open temporary offices across the country and we need to ramp them up. We work with Shared Services Canada to put the necessary informatics infrastructure in place. At the end, all of this will be dismantled and preparation starts for the next census from the lessons learned throughout the process and also from the lessons we have learned over the years.
We keep a core level of staff for the ongoing program. As I just mentioned, we are already planning for the next few censuses ahead of us. Definitely, as you can see from the last three cycles — in 2006-07, 2011-12 and 2016-17 — that is where the expenses are because this is when we collect, process and get ready for the dissemination of the whole operation.
Senator Marshall: Looking at chart 2, I can see where you are peaking. If we had a year six there, where would you expect the chart to be? Would it be down where we are at year one and year two?
Mr. Dufour: Yes, it will go down to that level.
Senator Marshall: Next year, when you come back, the graph will flatten out again?
Mr. Dufour: Yes, the graph will be down. I would like to mention, so as not to overly complicate all of this, we will start requesting funds in 2018-19 for the next census cycle. It will start in 2018-19 and will go up for the next seven years, and again the peak will be in 2021-22. That is a certainty.
Senator Marshall: So when you carry out your census, I know you have a lot of extra employees. Do you use Shared Services Canada? Do you use that organization?
Mr. Dufour: Definitely, yes. They basically prepare the entire infrastructure we need to conduct the census, because we have different systems and applications that we need as we go through the census. We have been working with them for the past three to four years to get ready for that. The entire infrastructure is ready now.
Senator Marshall: Shared Services came on stream in 2012, so this is the first census you'll be using them?
Mr. Dufour: For the first census, yes.
Senator Marshall: You are far enough into it now to get an idea as to whether things are going to run smoothly. We've heard from other witnesses that there are some issues with Shared Services. Do you foresee any problems? You have a program to deliver and will be under pressure. Do you foresee any problems?
Mr. Dufour: We have been working closely with them. We've conducted, as you can imagine, extensive tests. So far the infrastructure has been robust but, as we say, the rubber will hit the road in May when the peak of the operation will take place. I am quite confident, based on what we have observed in the testing, that things will go smoothly.
Senator Marshall: I notice in your 2016-2017 Report on Plans and Priorities that it starts off with two primary objectives. The first one is fairly basic, but the second one says:
. . .to promote the quality, coherence and international comparability of Canada's statistics through collaboration with other federal departments and agencies. . . .
Exactly what does that entail?
Mr. Dufour: I'm sorry, I was looking at the report and I only heard the end of your question.
Senator Marshall: Do you have your 2016-2017 Report on Plans and Priorities?
Mr. Dufour: Yes.
Senator Marshall: It says the agency has two primary objectives. The first one is easy. I understand that one.
But in the second one you say:
. . . to promote the quality, coherence and international comparability of Canada's statistics through collaboration with other federal departments and agencies, with the provinces and territories, and in accordance with sound scientific standards and practices.
How are you doing that?
Mr. Dufour: That means that, first, as the agency responsible for national statistics, we work very closely with all provinces and territories to prepare and deliver the statistics needed at all these levels.
I mentioned at the beginning that the demand for statistics goes way beyond the capacity we have in our ongoing budget to deliver, so we have to put the priorities on what is needed at various levels. Of course, the federal government is a big consumer of our data, but there are also various levels of consumer data everywhere across Canada. It means we apply quality and statistical rigour to make sure the numbers released by Statistics Canada will be useful and at a level of quality that is more than acceptable.
Senator Marshall: In your opening remarks you mentioned that you do projects at the request of departments and agencies.
Mr. Dufour: That is right. If you want, we can discuss this. The cost recovery business is another important aspect, and I think it is good for Canadians that we have this authority to do this. As I've mentioned, within the budget that we have today we are delivering on key priorities, but there are numerous other priorities that we could focus on as well should the budget be even bigger than what we have today.
Senator Marshall: The Canadian High Arctic Research Station is a new program. Exactly where are you now? The amount voted last year was $263,000, and now we are revving up to almost $20 million. Is the whole structure in place, or are you still putting things in place?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for this very appropriate question. The short answer is that we are in year three of a five-year growth cycle.
On April 1 of last year we were 10 people at the Polar Commission and 6 staff from the department. On June 1 we started with 16 staff. We have now augmented that with various term staff and arrangements, terms or, in many cases, assignments from other federal agencies to quickly staff up here in the National Capital Region and create the corporate underpinnings, which are Julie's realm of authority, so we can function fully as a compliant federal agency meeting all the central agency expectations. At the same time, we are now starting to ramp up our actual program operations in both the science and technology program and the knowledge management and engagement realm.
At the end of February of this year we closed a nationally advertised staffing process for positions in Cambridge Bay in Nunavut: scientific research positions, policy analysts and corporate service functions. We are now in the assessment process and we look forward to onboarding between 10 and 12 new staff members in Cambridge Bay and continue to grow the organization.
As we grow with our permanent capacity, we will wind down the short-term arrangements, the highly qualified staff that we have essentially borrowed from other federal agencies or people that we brought in from the outside. With this in mind, we will shift the centre of mass of our human resources northward to Cambridge Bay.
Consequently, our finances do ramp up significantly this year, largely reflecting bringing on 10 to 12 new staff members. That is about $1 million worth of additional operating funds there. There is an increase in our grants of $470,000. That is largely going towards capacity building initiatives in the North to help northerners gain the capacity to comprehend, utilize and mobilize new knowledge. The biggest single additional bit is approximately $6.5 million of contribution dollars that, by design, in year three of five of the plan was approved in the 2014 Treasury Board submission. We will be working with partners across Canada to ensure that new scientific equipment is deployed right across the Canadian North, as well as at our research campus in Cambridge Bay to accelerate the rate at which we can gather new information, new data, make sense of it and return it to northerners and all Canadians.
Senator Marshall: You are looking to the future now and you are looking to grow this organization, so we are looking at the $20 million. Do you see that increasing? You are talking about growing in one of your remarks. Do you anticipate that to grow significantly, or do you think that you will stabilize at $20 million?
Mr. Scott: The plan that has been outlined in the Treasury Board submission that was approved in May of 2014 arose out of a five-year plan to 2018-19 that shows us ramping up to an approximate total of $29 million for 2018-19, and that will be our stable level. It reflects quite well the need to ramp up in terms of staffing.
Right now the rate-determining factor is the availability of housing in the community of Cambridge Bay. There is an extreme housing shortage there, as there is in most northern communities. Through the efforts of our minister's department, we are building two different waves of housing to accommodate our own staff, some of whom will be locally hired; others will come from other parts of Canada. As we grow that infrastructure, that determines the rate at which we can bring on additional staff and, of course, with additional staff, do additional programming. That grows from the $11 million that we had all in for last fiscal year, and that is a combination of the Polar Commission resources on April 1 of last fiscal, plus the CHARS resources at April 1, combined on June 1, in the middle of a fiscal year — which was an experience, to say the least, closing three sets of books at the end of the year, which has now been completed — and growing steadily to approximately $29 million at the end of year five.
Senator Marshall: For the current fiscal year, do you foresee coming back for Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) or (C)? We look at main supply at the beginning of the year, but a lot of departments and agencies come back to government and request supplementary funding. At this stage do you think that your $20 million will suffice and that you will not be returning to government looking for additional funding?
Mr. Scott: That is correct. For the plans that we currently have in place, which have been approved by our board of directors, we are anticipating efficiently spending all of the money that is in the request for the current fiscal year and do not anticipate seeking additional funds unless our minister requests that we take on additional tasks.
Senator Marshall: For the grants and contributions, I would expect that you either have a process in place now or will establish one before you start making those grants and contributions. How would that be given out? Do you hand- pick individuals and organizations, or do you use something like requests for proposals?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. First, the vast majority of the funds will go out through competitive processes where we issue a call with clear guidelines and an independent evaluation process. The vast majority of the funds that we will move to others are in relation to the science and technology program. They will undergo a technical excellence peer review process as well as an assessment against alignment to our priorities.
For the process itself, historically, the Polar Commission had essentially a $1 million per year granting program, we could handle that quite well as the commission. It basically supports approximately 400 undergraduate and graduate students to perform research in the North. There is a good solid process in place for that.
However, in anticipation of a significant ramping up we have spent significant efforts, and part of our short-term staffing strategy was to bring in contribution program experts to design a leading-edge, online, integrated system that allows us to plan, assess, award and then track the awards that are given out. We have tested the system on several occasions. We are eager to complete the training of our staff who will be using the system. We look forward to establishing the system as a best practice that can be shared with others as well.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much. This is fun for me because I am very interested in the environment, as we all are, but I am in particular. I know that Senator Neufeld, whom I work with on the energy committee, is now counting the seconds before I ask a question on climate change. He's probably got money on it.
The Chair: We are the same in the Senate sessions, Senator.
Senator Mitchell: I will start with a more general question of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ms. Woodfield. What role do you play and how do you play that role when it comes to an NEB assessment of a pipeline? Are you the group that is sort of seconded to them, either virtually or in fact, to do the environmental assessment that they require?
Heather Smith, Vice President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: No, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, there are three responsible authorities that conduct environmental assessments: the Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board and us. The way the act is structured and projects are designated for environmental assessment, each organization has its own projects that it's responsible for: all nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; pipeline projects, the NEB; and anything else comes to us.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks, that is good to know.
I have a theory that people in Canada who are concerned about the environment have almost no public place to go discuss it, so they are drawn to project assessment procedures to talk about general environmental concerns that they morph into that project. These hearings are not set up for that at all, so they become clogged by their applications. They have nowhere else to talk about it. I'm thinking about a royal commission on climate change, for example, somewhere where we could flesh it out as a society, country and citizens.
How do you assess the pressure from the public to appear before your environmental assessments? Could you give me some idea of volume? How do you determine who gets to go and who doesn't? I think it has gone from thousands to far fewer than that?
Ms. Smith: In terms of the number of public hearings that we hold?
Senator Mitchell: No, people who want to appear before them.
Ms. Smith: We do different types of environment assessments. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the NEB hold public hearings as part of their regulatory process. They tuck the environmental assessment into the regulatory process.
For the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, our regulatory process is environmental assessment. Some of the environmental assessments we conduct do not involve an independent panel, and some do. Out of about the 60-odd environmental assessments active at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, less than 10 would be in a panel review. The rest are conducted by the agency.
We have a lot of flexibility in how we carry out the environmental assessment, so we can respond to the level of concern about a project. For a small project, like a quarry project in Nova Scotia, it is a pretty low-key environmental assessment conducted by a technical working group of federal and provincial experts. We would conduct public comment periods. We might hold an open house for the local community to answer questions. Most participation is through written comments and reading information that is posted on line or put in local libraries.
For bigger, more controversial projects, we would have an independent panel. It is quite an elaborate process. It takes a proponent anywhere from one to three years to prepare the documentation for a public hearing process. They often have done years of preparatory work even before they get into the formal environmental assessment process.
Once that panel review has started it is the panel's responsibility, because they are independent, to decide who appears before them.
Typically the philosophy of panels run by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is if you have an interest in the project and want to raise a concern, they are prepared to listen to you. There could be a limited amount of time allocated for oral presentations before the hearing, but people will also make written submissions.
Some projects that we have may look relatively straightforward when they start out so we'll end up conducting it as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, but when you get into the process you get a significant amount of controversy. I am thinking of a project like the Ajax mine project in Kamloops or the Pacific NorthWest LNG project in Prince Rupert. There we will adjust the process as we go to respond to the level of public concern. We would provide more public information sessions or forums for people to raise their views.
We just conducted a public comment period on the draft EA report for Pacific NorthWest, and we received more than 34,000 comments. That was a lot. We have never received that many comments for any project before.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much. You are very clear and have clarified a number of things.
The LNG plant clearly elicits response, in part, because it conjures up the issue of climate change and GHG emissions. Do you have a mandate to specifically assess GHG emissions? Will you have a mandate to assess them against the targets Canada made international commitments to meet? Do you in any way assess the costs of climate change that are related to that kind of project?
Ms. Smith: Yes, we have a mandate to assess GHG emissions.
When the new government came into power they announced an interim approach to environmental assessment. I'm sure you're aware that the Minister of the Environment has a responsibility to conduct a review of EA processes. In the meantime, we continue to work within the framework of CEAA 2012. One of the principles articulated for the interim approach was to assess direct GHGs from projects and upstream GHG emissions from projects.
Within our framework the direct effects are related to what we have defined as a project. In most cases we haven't defined a project to include the upstream GHG emissions. Everything is driven by what is under the responsibility and control of a proponent of the project. That is what we can get at in terms of the regulatory powers that the Minister of the Environment has to put conditions on projects.
For upstream GHG emissions, for example, we are going back to the function of environmental assessment as a pure information-gathering process. We gather the information and put it before decision-makers, and we are working closely with Environment Canada. They take that information and fold it into their work to develop a national framework for controlling GHG emissions. It is mostly information for now on that side, but it may lead to more aggressive action to control emissions down the road.
Within the environmental assessment process regarding GHG emissions we look at what a proponent is proposing and if that is best in class or if there are other measures they can take to improve the environmental performance of the project. We usually drive changes to the project to reduce emissions.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Scott, you stated that Canada is becoming a stewardship leader of circumpolar issues, one of which would be climate change. I don't think you used that word, but maybe you did and I missed it.
What would that look like? If Canada were a leader of circumpolar climate change issues, what would we be doing? How would you feed into that outcome?
Mr. Scott: Let me start by briefly outlining the four main components of our science and technology research program. The first area of interest is around renewable and alternative energies, recognizing that for much of Northern Canada — in fact 99.5 per cent of it — energy is imported in the form of diesel fuel from the South. There is a strong interest at high cost.
Senator Mitchell: Are you aware of the Energy Committee's study under Senator Neufeld's chairmanship?
Mr. Scott: Yes. We are very excited about the opportunity, particularly in the high-cost environment that is the North, of the potential of renewable and alternative technologies. However, given the harsh climate of the North, it is not simply to deploy existing technologies. We need to do additional research to "northify'' some of the technologies, for example, heat recovery ventilators and wind turbines. Icing is a major issue that doesn't occur in many parts of the country but is persistent in the North. Renewable and alternatives makes sense for environmental stewardship in the North as well as hopefully cost reduction, and greenhouse gas is a major part of that.
The area of our science program where we are putting essentially most of our resources is around baseline information: What is the current state of the environment? Many other actors are already in the midst of longer term monitoring programs. We are trying to fill key gaps and help to understand the trends of what the environment is doing in terms of change, and then the science to understand why those changes are occurring.
All of this, again, is done to better inform processes such as those run by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Of course, in the northern territories there are territorial-based assessment agencies in each of the three northern territories — similar processes but different organizations in each of the three northern territories.
The third major area of our science program is the changes are happening in the frozen part of the North, the cryosphere, as we call it: permafrost, sea ice, glaciers, snow. They are a direct consequence of the changing environment. It matters particularly in the North because much of the infrastructure in the North is founded on the concept that the permafrost is permanent; and it is increasingly becoming less so, with major cost implications for built infrastructure, such as roads or the foundations of buildings or maintaining the airstrips that connect the communities year-round. It also is important with respect to the changes in sea ice which, on the one hand, may make it easier with a longer shipping season as sea ice diminishes.
Alternatively, the sea ice conditions are becoming less predictable, and that can raise business risks. It also has a major impact for the residents of the North who travel for eight or nine months of the year on the sea ice. There are important human safety implications of less predictable ice conditions. The cryosphere piece is a major factor that is responding to climatic change.
The final piece of our science and technology program is around supporting the mobilization of the best technologies in infrastructure, whether it is for housing — and of course there is an acute housing shortage in the North. Great ideas being developed are not necessarily being deployed in the North.
In Budget 2016, a number of northern jurisdictions received additional funding for housing. We are working with other federal partners, such as Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the National Research Council and Natural Resources Canada, all of whom are technological experts in building efficiencies, building techniques and construction materials, and working on the other side of the equation with the regional housing authorities in the North, who own and operate the existing fleet of housing and will be responsible for the construction and operation of new fleets, bringing experts and operators together to ensure that we can mobilize the best technologies.
All of this is focused on human health, those who live in the North, making sure that the environmental impacts of our activities in the North are minimized. It really is the recognition of the environmental changes that are taking place. Being able to understand those trends puts you in a better position to predict — and therefore adapt — in a dramatic part of our country in terms of its environment.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have a series of short questions for each of you.
My first question is about Statistics Canada. I understand that your budget has remained stable, without too much variation. There is a point in your presentation on the Main Estimates that drew my attention, regarding statistical infrastructure. What do you mean by a drop in statistical infrastructure?
Mr. Dufour: Thank you for your excellent question. This is something that is unique to Statistics Canada. This refers to the activities and services that support our activities within the organization, such as the work related to survey methodology. Here we are referring to mathematicians, methodology experts, et cetera, that is to say all of the work involved in setting standards, as we must adapt to international standards for comparison purposes.
This also refers to the personnel who collect the data. Aside from the census, there is a huge amount of work to do in collecting data. More than 350 surveys are conducted every year. So the interviewers, the personnel responsible for preparing data collection and everything involving dissemination, are also included. As an example, our daily publication The Daily is also included in that. In short, these are all of the elements we need to maintain operations and issue our daily publications.
That is an excellent question, because we can see the content, the socio-economic data, et cetera. I would like to specify that internal services and statistical services can sometimes be confused. This year, the summary contains certain discrepancies, because to comply with Treasury Board definitions we had to switch certain items that were in internal services previously and place them under statistical services, and vice versa.
Senator Bellemare: How do you explain the drop in 2014? You were at $116.4 million in 2014, at $105 million in 2015 and today, you are at $97 million.
Mr. Dufour: That is due to adjustments we had to make to internal services. For instance, all of the data concerning improvements to rental buildings — since we do not own them — must now be entered under internal services. It is not because there is no more activity; it is simply an adjustment. If you examine the data more closely, you will see that.
Senator Bellemare: You stated that the statistical infrastructure sees to it that Canadian data comply with international procedures.
I often consult OECD data, and I see that they are sometimes different from Statistics Canada data. Do you try to make the data correspond? Can we trust both sources? Which of them should we choose?
Mr. Dufour: I find it a bit difficult to answer you, because I am biased. When you consult Statistics Canada data, you see the sources, the methodology and indications regarding the quality of the data. However, if you make international comparisons, the OECD data contains an amalgam of statistics from several countries. We work closely with the OECD so as to harmonize standards because of discrepancies. The chief statistician takes part in international discussions with the United Nations and the OECD. We also have specialists who sit on different committees to try to optimize organization in order to avoid discrepancies.
Thanks to programs we have put in place, we have been able to harmonize our standards with international standards. However, in other cases, such as in North America, it is more important to harmonize that area's data, and it is not a priority for the moment to have these data correspond to international standards. This is always an issue in statistics. It would be useful if the users could see the discrepancies when they compare data.
Senator Bellemare: I know that you work in close co-operation with the provinces, but sometimes I realize that data is missing on social programs. The departments publish data, but it is difficult to get an overall picture of social programs at the federal and provincial levels. Who is responsible for issuing that information? Is it you, other departments, or the researchers who gather it?
Mr. Dufour: As a national statistical agency, we publish national and provincial data. We receive requests from users who want more data at the sub-provincial level. Unfortunately, because of internal budgets, it is difficult. We try to publish more data by working with the provinces, but they are not necessarily in a position to do so either. We try to find solutions to that problem to publish more detailed data, such as at the municipal level. This is a solution we are exploring at this time. However, we have to be rigorous so as to publish very reliable statistical data. This too comes with costs.
Currently, we are working a lot with what we call "small data,'' which are derived from administrative data, so that we can prepare statistics we can publish without having to conduct surveys. Of course, there is a cost to surveys, and that is where we come up against our limits.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you very much. My next question is addressed to Polar Knowledge Canada, and concerns your administrative home port. In listening to you it is clear that you do research, as is it obvious that the Arctic and the whole polar area raise some important questions.
You have a budget of close to $20 million. Why are you not attached to Science Canada or to another department that would be more closely related to your mandate?
Mr. Scott: Thank you very much for your excellent question. Historically, it was the Department of Aboriginal Affairs that had the mandate of coordinating federal activities in the area of science and technology in the North, but under the new government, we now have the Department of Science.
Most agencies and departments have vertical mandates that deal with a certain number of fields of knowledge. Our mandate is rather horizontal, as besides dealing with several environmental and social areas, we work with the Department of Industry and align our efforts on their horizontal ones. We also work with other federal departments so as to create links with various scientific groups and discharge our horizontal mandate.
Senator Bellemare: My last question concerns capital operations, since we use another expenditure formula, according to priorities. As a new organization, in your budget of almost $20 million, what are the operational expenses, as compared to capital expenditures?
Mr. Scott: Briefly, all of the capital expenditures related to the research station are done by our department. We only deal with salaries and transfer funds.
Senator Bellemare: What is the operational budget in millions of dollars, as compared to the total budget?
Mr. Scott: I am going to ask Ms. Brunet, who is the expert from our financial department, to answer the question.
Julie Brunet, Director, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Canadian High Arctic Research Station (Polar Knowledge Canada): There is $9 million in the budget for operations, i.e. $3.6 million for salaries and $5.5 million for operations as such.
Senator Bellemare: What about the rest, is it grants and contributions?
Ms. Brunet: Exactly.
The Chair: Senator Bellemare, you can continue in our second round of questions.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Many of my questions have been answered, but maybe just to Polar Knowledge Canada. How many employees do you anticipate when you're in full operation in, I think you said 2018 or 2019 — I forget — where it ends up to be a $29 million budget?
Mr. Scott: We are anticipating somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65 to 75 employees in all, once we are up to full speed. We recognize, however, the staffing realities of the North, and in a particularly small community such as Cambridge Bay with a present population of 1,800. We anticipate a fair degree of staff turnover, particularly among staff we bring in from the South — science experts who have received formal training and are very much highly qualified.
From my experience in managing a small science office in Iqaluit from 1999 to 2004, there is a turnover every three or four years as scientists come in, complete a multi-year project and then move on to another opportunity. It will be challenging to remain fully staffed, and if we look at the normal turnover rate that we see in the federal family operating in the North, it is between 25 and 30 per cent per year. So we anticipate being in a state of perpetual staffing, which I am sure is of great advantage to our human resource folks.
It will keep us fresh. We will always be working with the best and brightest of emerging researchers, as well as folks in the policy field. We anticipate a little less turnover in corporate services.
Another major challenge for us will be staffing Nunavut beneficiaries for the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Inuit employment is a major obligation of the federal government. It is absolutely the right thing to do, and it meets the spirit and intent of the land claims agreement. We recognize that it will be a long-term proposition to make that happen and that we will be doing significant pre-employment capacity building and development efforts.
There is not a pool of highly trained beneficiaries standing by for jobs. The qualified people are working. It really is a question of pre-employment engagement. When we look at some of the initiatives we have planned, we start by working with children in grade school to get them excited about other ways of learning and knowing about their natural environment. We will work with students at all levels — throughout primary and secondary school, and as they reach college and university ages — supporting and inspiring them to create that next generation of scientists who are local, not just to the community of Cambridge Bay but elsewhere across the North.
It will be time-consuming. It is a long-term endeavour, and we will succeed. We have started already. We will continue to invest in that. We will meet the spirit and intent of the land claims obligation. We may or may not ever get to our 75 FTEs, but we will do our best to ensure that Inuit beneficiaries, even before they come to work for us, are gaining benefits from our presence and that of our colleagues to build capacity in the North.
We look forward to always working with the best and the brightest who are looking forward to making contributions in improving the lives of Northern Canadians and all Canadians.
Senator Neufeld: I have been to Cambridge Bay in the last while, and I know they are very excited about what is happening. The community was certainly working as hard as they could, and I think it's a great process that we are doing.
Out of the 65 to 75, how many of those would actually reside in, let's say Cambridge Bay? You said you are in some other northern communities, but can you give me some sense of that as compared to Ottawa?
Mr. Scott: Our long-term goal is to have as many of our staff located in Cambridge Bay or in the North as possible. Realistically, 80 per cent is a pretty challenging target to meet. We will always have a residual satellite office here in the NCR for staff whose main responsibilities involve working with others within the federal family and the administrative community, and for those with more senior responsibilities who need to appear at opportunities such as this.
We will put as much decision-making capability in the North as we possibly can, and we will put as many of our front-line knowledge creators in the North as we can. With that in mind, we will build as much local capacity in the administrative and policy analyst realms, as well.
We really want the full diversity of our staff working in the North. Cambridge Bay is our primary home; however, it would be advantageous to our opportunities to have people in other places, such as Yellowknife, Whitehorse or Kuujjuaq, for example, recognizing the diversity across our North. It's within the provisions of our act to have staff located in other northern places, as well, and it is advantageous to be better connected to the people whom we are primarily trying to serve through knowledge creation.
Senator Neufeld: Maybe I misunderstood, but you have a board, you said, an 11- or 12-member board?
Mr. Scott: It's a nine-person board at this time: a chairperson plus eight members of the board.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. You talked about working collaboratively with scientists in the Subarctic and the South Pole. Can you give me some sense — not a lot because the chairman won't give me a lot of time — of how that works together? I know quite a bit about it, but I'd just like to know what kind of things you would be doing.
Mr. Scott: At this point, Canada signed the Antarctic Treaty in 1988, but we have not yet become a fully consultative member of the treaty because we do not yet operate a proactive science program in the South.
The purpose of the treaty is to foster peace and the creation of knowledge, and now that we are recognizing more fully the interconnections between the polar regions and the mid-latitudes, and with the advent of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, we are recognizing an opportunity now, as we welcome polar researchers from around the world to Canada's North, at the station and elsewhere. Many of those researchers or their home institutions are active in the Southern polar region.
Our scheme at this point is to begin to create an Antarctic research program, with no new funding at this time, by increasing our collaboration with existing polar players who are coming to Canada: the French, the British, the Germans, the South Koreans and the Japanese. Each of these countries also operates in the South. By leveraging our Arctic geography and our investments in infrastructure and programming in Canada's North, by growing the size of the knowledge creation pie by bringing in international players we are opening opportunities to go back with these partners to their bases in the South, as they come to us to work in the Canadian Arctic. Through that, I think we can really put Canada on the map as a polar player, not just an Arctic player.
There is a significant amount of independent activity now. A handful of Canadian academics have long been involved with other programs in the South. We would like to advance that to a Canadian program that has some purposeful, really results-based, issues-driven science going on. We have the technical capabilities; it's a matter of building the partnerships to get to those Southern stations. In due course, when we demonstrate value of such a program, it may require some incremental funding, largely to offset travel costs to get to those bases in the South.
Senator Neufeld: It would be very expensive. I have some other ones, but I'll go to the second round. Could I just keep with the Polar Commission just for a couple more?
The Chair: One more would be great.
Senator Neufeld: One more would be very helpful. Thank you, sir.
So I read information about climate change and the warming of the planet. The information I read — I think it comes from a U.S. agency — is that the temperature has warmed 1 degree globally. Yet, when I read things about Northern Canada, interestingly enough, it's risen 2 degrees. I thought we all kind of lived in the same atmosphere and all of those kinds of things. Can you give me a sense of how that happens?
Mr. Scott: I can give you some sense, but not a complete sense. I am a geologist by training, but I am not a practitioner in current climate science. There is a fairly well-known phenomenon known as polar amplification, whereby the changes in the environment, for a variety of reasons, seem to be stronger in the polar regions. I'm not fully capable of providing all of the reasons behind it, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that, as temperatures rise in the equatorial regions, northbound ocean currents transport additional amounts of heat further North. This amplifies some of the things that are happening.
The other factor that's a big one is the loss of snow cover or the duration to which the ground is snow covered. Snow is very good at reflecting heat but, with incremental warming and shorter durations of snow and less snow cover in general, more heat can be absorbed by the ground. Those are two of the factors, but that is certainly not complete.
Senator Neufeld: Could you direct me to somewhere I could get more information? If you don't have that right now, could you get it to the clerk and she will distribute it?
Mr. Scott: We would be happy to follow up in short order with the clerk and provide you with some additional information.
Senator Neufeld: I live in the North, and we are happy that the snow is going.
Mr. Scott: We used to say that when I lived in Iqaluit as well.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: My question is addressed to Statistics Canada. Mr. Dufour, you mentioned in your presentation that your office was considered among the best, that is to say among the organizations that collect the best information. Compared to whom?
Mr. Dufour: Compared to the very large statistics organizations. I am talking about big players, like the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the British Office for National Statistics, our colleagues in the United States, even though the statistics system there is very decentralized, and the Netherlands. It is always the same players who participate in broad discussions to improve the international statistics system, if you will.
Earlier, Senator Bellemare asked me a question about the OECD. We work very closely with the OECD. Canada's chief statistician chairs the European Statistics Commission. We are often asked to participate because of the value added we bring to it, and we do well in comparisons. My colleague could talk about the census; we constantly receive requests on how we conduct the census from a majority of the countries who do censuses and who want to improve the quality of their censuses. We see to it that we work with large world organizations like the United Nations, the OECD and the IMF.
Senator Mockler: Among the list of agencies or governments you have just mentioned, what would be the top three?
Mr. Dufour: Oh, I may be criticized for having answered that question! I would say that the top three, without wanting to assign a ranking, are undoubtedly Statistics Canada, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Statistics Netherlands, especially because of their innovative efforts regarding the statistical apparatus and the way they compile data.
Senator Mockler: I liked what you said in your presentation regarding the fact that journalists had published information that did not reflect reality.
Mr. Dufour: I thought it very important to mention it, and I will give you an example. It is quite probable that one of the reasons we were invited here today was the 43 per cent increase. We just explained that to the committee, and this is very important, because you could call us back in two years and express concerns about a perceived decrease in our activities.
There is also something you do not see every day in the Main Estimates. For instance, questions were put to me about Shared Services Canada. When Shared Services Canada was created, there was a resource transfer of $38 million or $39 million. These resources disappeared from our projections from one year to the next, but Shared Services Canada is now responsible for providing services to us and absorbing the expenditures that accompany those resources. That is why the Main Estimates have to be explained in greater detail.
Senator Mockler: In your 2016-2017 Report on Plans and Priorities, will the recent decision taken by the government to bring back the long-form census have an impact on your short-term or long-term projections?
Mr. Dufour: We are now talking about the 2016 census cycle. That is under my colleague's purview, but I can answer you on the financial aspect. Using the existing envelopes we have been able to make the transition that was announced in November. We were able to absorb the costs for the reinstatement of that questionnaire, and we do not expect to need additional funds to complete the 2016 census with the long-form questionnaire as it existed in 2006.
Senator Mockler: Here is a question you could choose to answer, or you may provide comments: is the long-form census questionnaire really necessary?
Mr. Dufour: Generally speaking, it is up to the government to decide how the census will proceed. I have no opinion to express on whether the long-form questionnaire is necessary or not.
To complete my answer to your previous question, I would say that the decision is now known. According to the hypothesis that the long-form questionnaire will be used in the long term, through planning, we can make some savings, as compared to the cost of the 2011 household survey. You will recall that that decision was made late, as was the announcement. We had expected that that could happen, and that is why we were able to follow suit.
[English]
Senator Mockler: My last question is for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
According to your mandate, the agency is the responsible authority for most federal EAs. When I look at what you do, it is to serve as a coordinator for consultation with Aboriginal groups during the EA for projects it manages.
You are the lead person dealing with Aboriginal people?
[Translation]
Ms. Smith: In the environmental assessment process, we are responsible for mobilizing aboriginal groups for consultation, and for discharging the Crown's responsibilities toward them. We collect information, not only in the context of the environmental assessment process, but also to prepare for the regulatory processes. If, for instance, we raise a question concerning fish or the habitat of a fish species, naturally that involves Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We ensure that we send the questions and comments to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We also see to it that the replies are provided to the aboriginal groups. We take all of their concerns into account and we try to obtain an answer or to follow up on the questions raised, so that nothing falls between the cracks during the environmental assessment process.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I apologize to the witnesses for being late. I had an Internal subcommittee that took a more time than I thought it would.
I have two questions. One is to Statistics and a follow-up to Senator Mockler with regard to the long form and the short form.
Does the long form give you better information over a longer period of time?
Connie Graziadei, Assistant Chief Statistician, Census, Operations and Communications, Statistics Canada: Thank you, Senator Campbell. The mandatory long form, what it will give us is better-quality data, particularly at small community levels and with special population groups.
What we saw in 2011 with the voluntary survey, the estimates were very robust at the national, provincial, territorial and some of the large census metropolitan areas, but it was when we got into very small communities, particularly rural communities — Saskatchewan in particular was very hard hit — that we were unable to publish data for small communities and for some special population groups, immigrants at a small, local level or Aboriginal off reserve, for example.
Senator Campbell: If your province had a lot of rural and small towns, the long form census will provide a basis for all kinds of information, not just for funding for programs but what is actually needed on the ground; is that correct?
Ms. Graziadei: That's correct.
Senator Campbell: Thank you. I appreciate that.
With regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, you have in here a cost recovery of $8 million. It's not in the vote and it is not included in the estimates.
What is this? Who would you recover this from? What are your odds of recovering it?
We just saw from the reconciliation that the Catholic Church is not going to come forward with the $20 million that they promised. A lot of times there are promises out there. How often are they kept, and who isn't keeping them?
Ms. Smith: The $8 million that shows up in the estimates is the maximum authority we have to recover funding.
Senator Campbell: The maximum total or in $8 million increments?
Ms. Smith: We do recover costs. Right now, the only thing we recover costs for is the conduct of a review panel. We recover the costs of a panel from the proponents, and we do it in accordance with regulations that have been made under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
We've never bumped up against the limit of that authority to recover $8 million, and we usually recover something less than that. Last year it would have been between $1 million and $2 million just because the volume of activity for review panels was not extensive. We anticipate that we will be recovering more funding this year because we have more review panels, and they are going to be in a more active phase.
Senator Campbell: I just want to make it clear here. This recovery has nothing to do with breaking the act or breaking the law; this has everything to do with recovering funds on an expenditure basis for committees?
Ms. Smith: Yes. It's for the conduct of the environmental assessment process. Since the new act was passed in 2012, we do have contraventions of the act. You'd have to go to court, through a prosecution, and there would be fines, but that's not included in that $8 million.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I would just ask a couple of questions to Statistics Canada. You talked about the cost-recovery basis element of your business. Could you give us some examples so we can understand a bit?
Mr. Dufour: Yes. A typical example, as I said, close to 80 per cent of our cost recovery is from other federal departments. Instead of conducting a survey, they would ask StatsCan to do run the survey for them.
We've talked about environment. The Department of Environment may be interested in finding out about something specific. They would approach StatsCan. Using our infrastructure, we can do the work for them and we recover our costs.
The Chair: That's basically specific information for the needs of the departments and their specific objectives?
Mr. Dufour: That's one example. Of course, we also have all the custom tabulations. We have clients who will contact us and ask, "From the data holdings, could you produce something on this?'' As it's not a standard product we need to recover our costs, so we would do that for them.
The Chair: You mentioned you have conducted over 350 surveys each year. That number, is that standard practice?
Mr. Dufour: Yes.
The Chair: Who determines which surveys? How do you align them in terms of objectives?
Mr. Dufour: We have what we call our base program. There are typical surveys that people will think of right away, like the Labour Force Survey, Consumer Price Index and so on.
There are some surveys that we cannot just replace because there are some legislative requirements linked to them. It is a tough decision at times. I'll go back to the Deficit Reduction Action Plan where we needed to find ways of reducing our budget. We needed to cut programs. I can guarantee that we went through rigorously, and with all the programs abandoned there was an outcry. There were media stories and calls. Some surveys actually came back as cost recovery.
The Chair: Who made those decisions?
Mr. Dufour: Ultimately, it was the Chief Statistician. Under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, we had to put in front of the government how we would achieve our cuts. That was shared with all the people who needed to know.
The Chair: Mr. Scott, where are you going to be 18 months from now? You talked a lot about setting up and getting people involved and that you'll have turnover on a regular basis because people coming from the South to the North will have a capsule of lifespan in your area.
With the housing needs that you have and the problem of housing in the community, can that cause some form of resentment? How do you get in there on a level playing field so that the people are excited to see you and the investment the government is making, but there are certain practical issues? If people can't get good housing now, will you get priority for new buildings that go up? How do you balance that? Where will you be in 18 months?
Mr. Scott: We need to be somewhat self-sufficient in terms of providing incremental additional housing for the people we will be bringing to town, but we are always cognizant of the existing citizens in an overcrowded community. We need to find a balance.
The first two families who will move into our houses are both local families. Our two current Inuit employees in Cambridge Bay will be moving with their families into two of those houses when they're ready. That will put the units they are currently in into the hands of others.
When you build a brand-new house in a community where the majority of homes are aging, we need to be sensitive to the perception and reality of parachuting somebody into a brand new house while everyone else is in a different situation.
In addition to the current plans to build the six units that are essentially completed and the next ten units which will come on stream about a year from now, we are exploring a logical but unconventional approach to how the federal government does housing in the North. Historically, we have been governed by the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, parts of which are designed around the fact that we must put somebody from the South into the community without considering that there could be community members who could also fill those jobs. Some of the provisions of the current directive are antiquated with respect to current realities of where we can find qualified people to work in many government positions.
With that in mind we have begun to use our strong connections to the community, in particular the hamlet council and the mayor, to hear their thoughts on this. The community doesn't yet have a tax base. It's in the system. It's a particular size of community in Nunavut where the funding comes from the Government of Nunavut to run the community. It is not based on the tax base of the community.
The mayor is interested in moving toward having a tax base for her community and, as a result, the community has taken some steps to prepare additional building lots and make them available on a long-term lease basis to people in the community who may wish to build their own homes.
There is a pretty solid employment base in Cambridge Bay. People work for the Nunavut environmental assessment agency, the Nunavut Impact Review Board or the Nunavut Planning Commission. There is a Government of Nunavut office. There has been historic private-sector employment in the resource exploration and development industry. There is a promising gold mine a short flight south of the community.
There are people in town who would like to build their own houses. Working with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation — also interested in stimulating home ownership in the North — we would like to bring our needs for additional housing for our staff together with the desires of the community of Cambridge Bay and try to find ways to adjust, or in the form of a pilot project, to see how federal government forces and needs to have staff in housing might play out in a better way for the community.
This may help the mayor achieve her goal of having a tax base for her community. It may encourage our staff that comes from the South initially to stay longer because they can get involved in home ownership rather than subsidized rent in a Crown-provided house. Increasingly, as northerners get involved, they can envision home ownership as part of a federal government employment package.
That doesn't exist yet. We will be working with Treasury Board and other central agencies, as well as technical experts like Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the community of Cambridge Bay, to try a pilot. How can we better be a housing solution rather than, as you are anticipating, perceived as part of a housing problem? We would rather be on the positive side of that. It will take some work.
Our first wave of housing is complete and almost ready to occupy. The second is under planning and construction. Before we do a third wave, we are looking to find something more innovative that might provide longer term, lasting benefits for our host community and the people who live there.
The Chair: From a research perspective, what is your major objective in terms of the next 12 months?
Mr. Scott: Mobilizing our science and technology program, really getting on the ground on renewable and alternative energy, enhancing our baseline understanding of the environment and how it is changing.
The Chair: Do you have objectives set in each of the areas you mentioned?
Mr. Scott: Yes, we do. We have fairly detailed work planning for the current fiscal year and some out-year planning for years four and five.
The Chair: Do you have the resources available to execute those objectives?
Mr. Scott: We anticipate having those resources on board quickly. The competition that I referred to earlier, we had over 600 applications. Many were in the domains of science and technology, where we are looking for research or supporting scientists.
There is a fantastic crop of recent graduates who are eager to work in the North and to make a difference for northerners. We will have no trouble identifying well-qualified people who would like to come with us for some amount of time in the North and gain work experience in the North and operate with northerners themselves.
The Chair: Ms. Smith and Ms. Woodfield, you caught my attention when you said it is at least a three-year time frame with environmental assessments or reviews.
When I heard that initial phrase, and the fact that you have horizontal relationships with different departments, I wondered if this is another case of red tape, of getting involved with a situation that takes so long to get through and going through the myriad of players. There are different players and different positions that you are crossing over, talking to your associates.
Could you give us a quick response on relationships, execution and efficiency of time usage? You will say, "You want to ask about the major projects, and we may not be responsible for some of these major projects but we have projects on the West Coast and the East Coast. We have a major issue in terms of our economic well-being and to balance that with the environmental needs and concerns that all Canadians have.'' How do you manage that process?
Ms. Smith: Under our legislation, we have legislated timelines. Those are constraints on the amount of time that the government itself takes to carry out its work and do the interdepartmental coordination.
You are spot on. We work closely with a number of other federal departments. While we are a science-based organization ourselves, we rely heavily on the scientific expertise of other departments like Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, Coast Guard and NRCan. We analyze a project, farm out the issues and request expert advice from those departments. We do that within our legislated timelines.
When we start an environmental assessment process, we produce a document that's called Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. That is what the proponent is required to go out and do in order for federal departments to conduct the assessment.
Depending on the size of the project, that can take anywhere between one to three years of study, analysis and compiling all of the data and information into a form that expert departments can look at and determine what the potential environmental effects are. Also affected communities, indigenous groups, can look at the information and understand what the impacts will be on them and their communities and provide comments back into the environmental assessment process so we can take into account what kind of accommodation and mitigation measures we need to ensure that this project is environmentally acceptable, provides the social and economic benefits that people expect, and will not have unintended adverse effects.
The Chair: As a citizen my concern is when you hear that you could have departments say, "Okay, three years for us, three years for this and three years for that.'' What efficiency do you have? What sense of urgency is there to balance the regulatory issues versus the needs of the Canadian public and the economic needs versus the climate needs?
It hits you when you listen to the statement that you made, a flash that goes, "What about the other horizontal groups they are working for?'' Is this everyone lining up and saying, "Okay, it will take this much time''? When will it ever get done?
Ms. Smith: The legislated timelines that I talked about apply to everyone within the federal government. We are analyzing the proponents' information, getting advice from expert departments and bringing that back into the process, all within our legislated timelines.
For a typical environmental assessment, we have 365 days to do that analysis, any public consultation that needs to be done and get a package of information out to the minister for decision making. We are running a tight process, but the timing of how long it takes is within the control of the proponent. We tell them what is required to move to the next phase of the process, and when they do that is up to them. It is about how quickly they want to move.
A lot of our projects are mining projects, and those projects are driven by commodity prices. We're in a dip in prices for many commodities, and we have some proponents who say, "This is exactly the time I want to move through the environmental assessment process,'' and they are moving smartly through the process so they're ready when there is an upturn in prices.
The Chair: You talked about your 60 projects or assessments. That is a huge number and a lot of work.
Ms. Woodfield: Maybe what I could add to that is if the proponent is requested or required to provide information, then the federal timeline stops. So it is up to the proponent to determine the amount of time it takes to gather the necessary information to meet the requirements for the agency. Again, that impacts on the timelines, and the quality of the information that comes to the agency also impacts on the timelines for each of the environmental assessments.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Marshall: This question is for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
When you look at your expenditures and estimates, they are going up and down. Is that normal? Is that what has happened over the past 10 years, that it fluctuates with what's on the go in a particular year?
Ms. Woodfield: It fluctuates with what's on the go in a particular year. It fluctuates on the timing of the environmental assessments, how quickly they proceed, which also impacts on the amount of funding that is given out to indigenous groups and the Canadian public to participate.
If there is a project that is halted, then the contribution funding that is given to those groups will obviously be halted as well because it follows the progression of the environmental assessment. If a project proceeds rapidly, those funds will also be disbursed rapidly.
While we make commitments to Aboriginal groups and Canadians to participate, the disbursement of those funds may occur over a number of years, depending on the progression of the environmental assessment which is driven by the proponent. That is where you see those up and down swings.
Senator Marshall: If we look at the year that just ended, the estimates were around $15 million and it looks like your expenditures will be closer to $22 million. What happened last year? That is based on the information that we have, voted.
Ms. Woodfield: Are you looking at the estimates to date, the $23.9 million?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Woodfield: What that $23 million represents is the $17 million, which is our A-base funding, plus the funding that was renewed during that short period of time related to Aboriginal consultation.
What the $23 million does not include is the $8 million renewed subsequent to this period of time related to the Major Projects Management Office. That is a timing presentation issue.
Senator Marshall: What are internal services? That shows the same sort of fluctuation. It was an expenditure of $12 million in 2014-15, and then the next year the estimates were $4.7 million, and now this year the estimates are $5.2 million. So what are "internal services''? What does that term refer to?
Ms. Woodfield: Internal services will include the cost for the finance function, the HR function and the IM/IT function, which is ever-increasing —
Senator Marshall: So all your support services?
Ms. Woodfield: — and communications. What you will see in the early year there, the one where you mentioned internal services were around $11 million, included in that year were costs now allocated directly to the program, as they are in direct support of programs. For example, communications in that earlier year would have been included in internal services, whereas it's direct support of the program operations. Those costs are now being better reflected as a direct operational cost.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Those are my questions.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Several of my questions for you have already been asked and answered. I was wondering about the same things as Senator Marshall.
I do, nevertheless, have another question for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency representatives. I am wondering about the relationship between your agency and the provinces, since they, too, are involved in assessing the environmental impact of projects. Is the communication with the provinces good? Do you share information, or is there a duplication of efforts?
Ms. Smith: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has had the same goal for 20 years, and that is to undertake environmental assessments jointly for each project. That is our goal, but sometimes, we aren't able to conduct joint assessments. Usually, it's possible, but when it isn't, we do our best to coordinate efforts with the help of federal-provincial technical working groups. The experts are all at the same table discussing the effects and each one contributes their expertise to the analysis and process.
Under the current act, we also have certain tools at our disposal, such as an equivalence tool, which we have not used yet. We also have the power to substitute the provincial process for the federal one. In addition, an agreement with British Columbia was signed, and two projects were completed in accordance with that agreed-upon process. In those cases, British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office conducted the environmental assessment on the federal government's behalf. I should point out that the minister retains her decision-making authority. Two liquid natural gas projects were completed, and there are 11 other energy and mining projects. The provinces lead the environmental assessment process, and we provide them with support while coordinating the activities involving federal experts. Once the process is complete, we prepare the decision requests that will be submitted to the minister. The assessment work, however, is carried out by the province.
Senator Bellemare: Are you working jointly with Quebec on the building of the pipeline?
Ms. Smith: The National Energy Board is responsible for pipelines, but processes ensuring a high level of coordination with the province are in place, especially for projects involving port authorities. Four such projects are under way: one in Quebec City, one in Montreal, one in the Saguenay region and one in Trois-Rivières. They are port expansion projects. Working groups have been established and they include both federal and provincial technical experts.
As far as some of these environmental assessments are concerned, we have broadened the scope of the assessment to take provincial concerns into account. Furthermore, we are relying on the province to assume responsibility as regards the outcome of the analysis. If the results fall within their jurisdiction, the provinces will take the necessary mitigation measures; keep in mind that the jurisdiction of each level of government has its limits. In any case, through extensive consultation and coordination, we are able to coordinate efforts with a view to preventing otherwise controllable harmful effects.
[English]
The Chair: For the three groups, at the end could you give a 30-second summary of your biggest challenges are in the next fiscal year?
Senator Neufeld: Equivalency is something that I worked on. I believe that the federal minister responsible retains the right to recognize a province's environmental assessment process, whether to accept it or not, right at the start. It's a good move because it used to be where both were doing many of the same things, and this was a way to eliminate that.
The legislation addressing greenhouse gas issues on projects, was that in 2012 or sooner? When did you have to start monitoring greenhouse gas emissions?
Ms. Smith: If you go back to the very first federal environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, there was a responsibility to look at greenhouse gas emissions under that order. There was a responsibility to look at it under the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and that continues under CEAA, 2012.
For example, a number of large oil sands projects went through environmental assessment between 2005 and 2012, and the greenhouse gas emissions of those projects were considered in that assessment.
Senator Neufeld: Good.
Ms. Smith: I might add that we have always looked at what is the effect of climate change on the project as well, which is the other half of the equation. Not just what the project does to climate change, but what climate change will do to the project. We have always looked at that for every project.
Senator Neufeld: Did you dissect the 34,000 responses you received with regard to the PETRONAS plant? Were there some for, some against and some in the middle of the road? Did you look at those as a department?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: Can you tell me what they were?
Ms. Smith: Yes. I don't think we have completed all of the analysis yet, but we are analyzing all of the comments.
There were blocks of comments that were letter-writing campaigns: some for and some against the project.
Senator Neufeld: I mean real letters, not just a petition. I don't believe in that, to be honest. It has to be somebody who will sit down and actually write something.
Ms. Smith: We did get a number of thoughtful comments, and they provided independent scientific information that is relevant to the environmental assessment. We are in the process of farming those out to expert departments that might have specialized expertise.
For example, we got a lot of comments on the project's contribution to climate change. We passed those on to Environment Canada and asked them — particularly where someone has raised an issue that wasn't explicitly addressed in the environmental assessment — what their views are on that.
Senator Neufeld: I ask those questions because I come from Fort St. John, my home. We had a demonstration and over 500 pieces of heavy equipment out on one day to let the federal government know that people where I live, because it's the main industry, want to see something happen.
The other thing that has been said is that the Canadian public does not trust the environmental assessment process. Do you have any indication that that is true? I trust the system; I don't have any problem with the system.
Do you have letters that would actually back that up? Has anyone written a letter that said "I don't trust you anymore for these specific reasons''? Do you have any of that coming into our inbox at all? If you do, could you tell me how many there were in the last five years?
Ms. Smith: I don't know if I can give you a number on that.
Yes, we do get those kinds of letters. We got those kinds of letters for the environmental assessment on the Pacific NorthWest project. We got those kinds of letters on the Woodfibre LNG project assessment.
Senator Neufeld: If people wrote you a letter and said, "We trust you,'' I guess you would count those too.
Can you give me some idea? I am not asking for it right now, but if you could provide it to the clerk for all of us. I would be interested to know who the people were, if I could.
Ms. Smith: Do you want to know the types of people who would write in and say that?
Senator Neufeld: Yes. Better yet, if you can provide copies.
Ms. Smith: We would probably have to redact the personal information.
Senator Neufeld: That would be fine.
Ms. Smith: Okay. We can provide you with some copies.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you.
The Chair: We will follow up with you on that request.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Senator Mockler: To follow up on what I just heard from Senator Bellemare and Senator Neufeld, and this will be for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Am I right — and I hope I am wrong — that there is a duplication of efforts between the federal and provincial governments in looking at such projects? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having two levels of government involved in environmental assessments in Canada? I believe that everything has to be based on scientific data rather than gossip.
Could you provide this in writing to the chair, or do you have any comments now? I feel there is some duplication. I could give you an example in New Brunswick.
Ms. Smith: For the Sisson Project?
[Translation]
As I mentioned, the agency's policy is to have a single environmental assessment conducted per project. That isn't always something we are able to achieve, however, because each level of government maintains its decision-making authority over the project. The information necessary to make decisions is vital to both levels of government, and both want to make sure they obtain the information they need.
It has to do with how much confidence there is in the processes and in the opinions or advice provided by whoever undertakes the environmental assessment. With that in mind, we are not at the point where we have a single organization that everyone has confidence in to conduct the assessment.
I talked about the environmental assessment time frames. We work within those time constraints. They are intended to ensure that the process is efficient for the proponent, but one of the unintended consequences is that they make it more difficult to work in cooperation with the provinces. The deadlines are so tight that it's challenging to align the steps in our processes with those of the provincial processes. If we had a bit more flexibility and could make adjustments to the time frames, we could coordinate much more effectively with the provinces. I am expecting that issue to be discussed as part of the environmental assessment process review, set to begin shortly. There is no doubt that, under the new legislation, we have less flexibility than we did in the past to work with the provinces. We don't want to do away with the deadlines, as they do serve an important function, but we would need a little more flexibility in order to foster better coordination.
[English]
The Chair: Our last question, 30 seconds each, is on challenges. When we're writing our report, it is nice to have conclusions with each of our witnesses.
Mr. Dufour: At Statistics Canada, the number one challenge is to deliver a successful census. There are three points related to this.
First, we want to remain the world leader on Internet response, and we need 65 per cent. That's our planning assumption at least, and I think we will be successful there. Second, we want to have data quality and quantity of response equivalent or better than we had in 2006, which is what we can compare with the long-form mandatory. Third, we want to release our data 10 months earlier than in previous censuses.
The Chair: Hopefully Shared Services will do their jobs and the people you sent over to Shared Services — now wearing Shared Services T-shirts with "StatsCan'' on the back — who are going through major cultural changes, are going to deliver. Is that correct?
Mr. Dufour: I could not have said it better.
The Chair: Not that we are trying to be police people, but it is a huge undertaking.
Mr. Dufour: The second point is meeting the growing needs of our federal partners for increased data. You have seen many departments, and they will all tell you they need data. We need the infrastructure, staff and everything to be in place to be nimble, agile and respond to these needs.
The Chair: Hopefully the data is real information to be used for a purpose as opposed to data.
Mr. Scott: Based on the strong underpinnings corporately that we have been able to establish in our 10 and a half months of existence in the past fiscal year, we are now ready to enhance our presence in Cambridge Bay with a major staffing undertaking. Housing is a major issue, and we will try to play our cards even better than the existing standard while managing the impacts that we have on the community. The community thinks they are the luckiest one in all of Canada's North to have us there, and we will work on that.
Next is ramping up the program delivery in both the science and technology program as well as our knowledge management and engagement functions to deliver on what we are mandated to do, and we are looking forward to that.
Ms. Woodfield: Our top priority for the year would be supporting the minister's new mandate relating to the review of the environmental assessment process. The government has announced that one of its priorities is to do a national review of the EA process to restore public trust in the EA process under their purview.
Top priorities two and three would be to continue to ensure the delivery of high-quality environmental assessments and align the capacity of the organization with the demands of the environmental assessments. We have fluxing demand and we need to ensure we are nimble enough to align our resources to where the demand is in a manner that is efficient and effective.
The Chair: Could you, as a favour to our committee, give us a one-pager? If I understand correctly, there are 60 assessments under way at this particular time. Without being overly specific but specific enough, where are the 60 projects in terms of order of completion? If you had a form of letting us know, could you give us maybe your top five projects so we can understand the projects themselves and have actually something in front of us to look at? Publicly we are aware of many projects, but if you could do that that would be helpful to us.
Ms. Woodfield: We will be happy to do that.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. You all did a magnificent job, and we appreciate the fact that you took the time to be with us. I'm sure we will have you back to ask you more questions in the near future.
We will adjourn and continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)