SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INNOVATIONS FUND

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Only to say that this is funded primarily out of the removal of the exemption of PST on disposable diapers, levy against liquor bottles, a fair number of criteria that are laid down for applications, but approval is by a committee and after a screening process by the departments and the Secretariat of Sustainable Development. It is, however, intended to be a discretionary fund to support activities in areas that probably do not fall under the normal government funding, in fact, for sure do not fall under government funding, although departments can and have--[interjection] Well, I heard a shout across the table here. Actually, one of the criticisms a few years ago was that departments to too great a degree were receiving money out of this fund rather than going to individuals. I would suggest that balance is still there, but Green Team is an example of where there is block funding to a department from this fund. The greening of Winnipeg is another example of where there is a broad-based allocation to Urban Affairs, I believe in that case, to allow a program to go to fruition that might not normally have received approval under the regular Estimates process.

I think we should proceed.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Does the opposition critic have an opening statement?

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I am anxious to get into questioning. As the minister is aware, there were a number of issues raised in the last session as to the allocation of the fund, in particular to the different political constituencies throughout the province.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Pardon me. Is this an opening statement?

Mr. Dewar: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Okay.

Mr. Dewar: I just wanted the minister to be aware that we will be monitoring the allocation of those funds as the projects are announced. We just assume, when these decisions are made, that all areas of the province, be they held by Conservative or NDP or Liberal members, receive consideration when that consideration is given to the projects.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the member. Now, I guess questioning can proceed. Would the honourable minister like to introduce his staff present?

Mr. Cummings: I have Ann Didur and Marni Larkin from the Sustainable Development Co-ordination Unit. Ann and Marni keep track of the paperwork plus a lot of other things. But particularly in relationship to the fund, there is a very detailed reporting mechanism requiring recipients of funds to report back on the expenditure of the funds and, as well, at the completion of the project, to make sure that things are adequately managed, including the fact that we manage a holdback to make sure that they complete the job appropriately.

Mr. Dewar: I believe Mr. Sopuck was the secretary of the fund and now he has left the employ of the government. Who is the acting secretary?

Mr. Cummings: I am not sure that there has been a direct appointment, but we believe that it will be filled on an acting basis by Bill Barto who is seconded out of Natural Resources, I believe.

Mr. Dewar: Going over the five-year summary, there was a large increase in the fiscal year 1994-1995 from $3.4 million to almost $10.5 million. Why such a large increase in that one year?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, without flushing out the precise numbers, as we were setting up the Used Tire Program, we did not have the legislation in place to allocate the money to them so the funds were allocated on a notional basis to the Sustainable Development Fund and then at the end of the year--we managed to get the Used Tire Program in place near the end of the fiscal year, and we reallocated $6,050,000 to the Used Tire Program. To the Products Stewardship Program, we did the same thing, and there was $1,487,000 reallocated out of the fund to the Products Stewardship Program. In other words, at the beginning the year, Treasury Board allocated a notional amount to the Sustainable Development Fund knowing that they anticipated revenues coming in in support of these two programs. The levy was in place, so we were collecting the money. The one thing we wanted to be very sure about was that we did not fall into the trap that Ontario did and I believe other provinces subsequent to that.

When Ontario's great tire fire occurred, they had over $13 million or maybe some number significantly higher than that in a fund that they had been collecting over a period of time, and they had not done anything with it, and found out that that money disappeared into general revenues. That was always the fear the public expressed about the three-dollar levy on tires and about the two-cent levy on beverage containers, that government would somehow scoop those dollars.

When we talked earlier about dedicated funds, I wanted to make sure that we were not only able to point to a mechanism where they would be dedicated but that we had a clear path to show the public how this money was reserved and held in reserve and kept as funds specifically for the programs for which it was collected. So this was simply a vehicle to acknowledge the money in the Estimates process and, yes, it made the fund look particularly large, but we were able to then reallocate it out of the fund to the independent boards when we got them set up by legislation. You may recall, we had to make some amendments to get the legislation in place.

Mr. Dewar: The Provincial Auditor in her report of 1993 raised a number of concerns regarding the monitoring and so on. What action has the minister taken to deal with some of her concerns?

Mr. Cummings: That was the 1993 report. We have had two years since then, where I believe the Auditor has been complimentary of the process that is being used. The paper trail, if you will, and the reporting mechanisms were tightened up and, frankly, I believe the original report of the Auditor, if it had fallen a few months later in the review, that we would have had these mechanisms in place, as I recall. I am hoping the Auditor is now satisfied and the reporting has been tightened up, which was an important part of the fund such as this. You do not want to give somebody $25,000 and have them spend it on something other than it was allocated for under the application process. So we now have a very tight, some people say intrusive reporting mechanism for these projects even though some of them are quite small.

* (1110)

Mr. Dewar: So one of her recommendations was to document the monitoring done, and that is now done?

Mr. Cummings: That is correct.

Mr. Dewar: In other words, they formally communicate the terms of the grants and the grant approval letters to the recipients?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, that has been done.

Mr. Dewar: Another one of her recommendations was to monitor the receipt of the final activity and financial reports?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, that has been done and as evidenced as well by the holdback, depending on the amount, we hold back 15 percent or 25 percent of the funds. Mr. Chairperson, 15 percent to 25 percent of the project is held back depending on the size of the project, and then the funds are disbursed on completion. So, if somebody really did intend to deceive the plan, the first hold we would have on the dollars is that we would not flow the last dollars.

Mr. Dewar: What is the maximum that a group can receive in terms of a grant?

Mr. Cummings: There are an awful lot of them that fall right around $25,000. When you start exceeding that, you are probably looking at large projects. We have put out funds I suppose up to $100,000, but that is the exception as opposed to the rule. Some of the transference of funds to departments to administer, there is a block transfer to Environmental Innovations in I, T and T and things like the Manitoba Youth Corps, which I referenced earlier, and the Economic Innovations program in I, T and T is an area where actually they did not expend the funds and they were lapsed funds at the end of the year in the first year or two of the program. That is now starting to see more uptake as well.

The member asked, is there a maximum amount? No. The project itself will be assessed as to whether or not there is an appropriate amount. I can give you as an example that these are screened fairly hard and this is only by memory, but I can indicate an example of how tough it is to get approval under this fund sometimes. I can remember one meeting where 41 applications were there and 33 of them were refused. It is not a knock over in terms of approval. There are a large number of requests that come through.

Mr. Dewar: How many applications would you receive in a year and how many are approved?

Mr. Cummings: Last year there were 163 approvals out of 290 applications. Oh, pardon me, 290 were declined, so that would have been a total of 453 applications.

Mr. Dewar: How is the information given out to the public in terms of this whole program? I know that the Town of Selkirk they--I raised it with them and brought it to their attention. I believe there is an interest there to follow up and they are exploring the possibility of establishing a nature trail somewhere along the river, but I do not think they were fully aware of the potential of the fund until I brought it to their attention. How is this publicized out there?

Mr. Cummings: In the early year or two of the fund, I guess we got a lot of free advertising because there was a lot of discussion in the media about the 10 cents that we applied against liquor bottles, about the removal of the exemption of PST on diapers, but since then a pamphlet has been developed and dispersed at municipal meetings. There have been displays held at functions such as that, and I guess, frankly, the number of applications has risen so rapidly lately that we were almost afraid that it has been overadvertised because there is a limited amount of resources that can be applied to screening applications.

Mr. Dewar: So, if the Town of Selkirk were to make an application for a nature trail, that would meet the criteria of the fund?

Mr. Cummings: Those types of things have been funded, yes. One of the issues is, what percentage, and, again, the criteria is not hard and fast, but one of the issues is always, well, would they do this anyway and are they just looking for a way of saving themselves a few bucks? Secondly, and I am talking in the broadest sense here--frankly I want it on the record because of your question, I would encourage Selkirk to put in a request, I mean that is not a problem--but the thing is, the fund is not going to fund 100 percent of it. It may only fund 25 percent of a project, or it may decide that this is an ongoing project for which the applicant has some limited resources to deal with it annually and that it will be an ongoing program. The fund does not fund three- or four-year projects, normally. The only long-term commitment we made was to the Youth Corps where there was a condition made that monies would come from this fund to support the Youth Corps every year. I believe it was an amount of $200,000 that would go each year to support that project on a maxed-out basis of $1 million, I believe it was, over five years.

So what I am saying is that if an entity puts in an application, this is generally a one-time grant. It is not something that would be granted $25,000 a year for five years, normally. The only exception we made was the Youth Corps, which we saw as a priority that needed to be carried on on a continuing basis, for continuity's sake.

Mr. Dewar: I believe the City of Portage la Prairie received a grant for a nature trail or wilderness trail, if I am not mistaken, $16,000. Is that a one time?

Mr. Cummings: I am pretty sure it would be one time. It is very rarely that we would do it more than that. Occasionally there have been big projects, as I said, that have done otherwise. It is almost always one year. Yes, it was a one-year project. It actually involved some riverbank enhancement.

* (1120)

Mr. Dewar: Well, after the recent conditions in Selkirk, we could use some riverbank enhancement, after the flooding. But was that particular project then--was the City of Portage la Prairie required to contribute some as well? Was that the total funds that they required to do that project?

Mr. Cummings: They had a contribution as well.

Mr. Dewar: My final set of questions deals with the approval process. Who decides who receives the funds?

Mr. Cummings: As I indicated, there is an evaluation done by departments. Obviously Natural Resources and Environment do a lot of the evaluations; Agriculture does a significant number; I, T and T. They send forward with a recommendation based on their best knowledge of what the benefit might be from the project. Then that information is assembled by the secretariat and brought to the committee, the Sustainable Development Committee. That committee then goes through them based on that information and whatever other concerns that may have been brought forward by the secretariat at that time, concerns for or against, quite frankly.

One of the things that we have struggled with, for example, is that in the early stages of the program there were some playground equipment replacements that were supported. It was an enhancement of a green space presumably, but after a while you start to ask yourself, how long should you continue funding playground structures? They were innovative structures, there was green space enhancement but, after a while, you have to say, there is probably a better use that these dollars could be put to, so those types of applications are now being--in fact, we are getting much more sophisticated and other projects more related to in some cases research, in some cases innovative approaches to land cover.

Purple loosestrife has been a problem in the province along with certain types of biological weed control to get away from the use of chemicals. There was a period of time when we funded through this fund I would think 10 biological weed control programs, and we did that for about two years, different weed control districts. Purple loosestrife, we have funded a number of those projects for removal of purple loosestrife. That was part of the Portage application. That is what reminded me that we have funded those types of projects. So the criteria are based on contribution to sustainable development of a community, bearing in mind that that is not just environmental law, it is also enhancement of the life of the community. Education, in fact there have been a number of projects that have been funded with the support of the Department of Education.

Mr. Dewar: But the final approval of the fund, is it not the cabinet that makes the final approval as to who receives the funds?

Mr. Cummings: It is a committee that I chair.

Mr. Dewar: And your recommendations go to cabinet? Are you the final say as to who receives the funds?

Mr. Cummings: On the basis that grants always have to have cabinet approval, so it is not the decision making on the recommendation that is done there, that is done by the committee. They make a recommendation which goes forward. I think I said that backwards. The committee makes a recommendation, but cabinet always approves the grant, it does not matter which department it is.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1. Sustainable Development Innovations Fund $3,200,000--pass.

Resolution 32.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,200,000 for Sustainable Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

This concludes consideration of Sustainable Development Innovations Fund.

The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section is the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and critic time to prepare? Thank you, we will take a 10-minute recess.

The committee recessed at 11:25 a.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 11:33 a.m.