Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things, I'll, first of all, go through the functional review. During the planning phase of the functional review, that was done in terms of 2016, so before I arrived in the department. So looking at that functional review, what I wanted to do was really get a sense of coming into the department, what was the reality? What was going through the various divisions, and where were the pressure points? What I ended up doing was I ended up contracting and having an operational review done, as well. Then I had two very strategic meetings with my senior management staff, where we talked about the operational and the functional review to determine whether or not these were appropriate reductions.
On the basis of that, what we ended up doing, and I must say as well what I did, I looked at the OAG report as well, because it came out at around the same time. So having the ability to see all of those recommendations, we ended up undertaking a reorganization within ENR and looking at moving some divisions around, moving staff so that it was more comparable in terms of staff complement per director. I think we've been able to do that. Really, when we look at the reduction, what we decided to do was, from the 250 departmental review, we decided to take $175,000 from corporate management, and that is reducing the $325,000 WSCC budget allocation to $150,000. For the last three fiscal years, we've had no expenses within that count.
This is a program that is for a traditional harvester who is actively engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering for a livelihood, and at least 25 percent of the harvester's gross income must come through traditional harvesting. This includes any amount of value for traditional country food, as well. Trappers' claims are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and as I said, we had no claims for the last three years, so we decided to take $150,000 from that, leaving an additional, what is that, that's $175,000 within the account, and then risk-manage that in the department depending on the year.
In addition, we looked at $75,000 being taken off in terms of environment stewardship and climate change, and that's a reduction in salary costs and other O and M. This is not fully funding an analyst position within one of the activities, and we feel that it could be adequately handled at the existing level. Those were where we came up with the $250,000 that was initially identified in 2016 as the departmental functional review. Thank you, Mr. Chair.