:
I call the meeting to order.
Colleagues, we're continuing with our review of the economic stimulus package on behalf of Canada's taxpayers. We have a number of departments in front of us today.
I want to apologize for the late start. The environmentalists who were in the room prior to us are using a different time clock from us. We forgive them for that. We'll start now, and I hope the witnesses are ready. We're getting off to a very quick start, but we are ten minutes behind time.
We have a large number of departments with us today. It's a large panel: Western Economic Diversification, the Department of Industry, National Research Council, Atomic Energy of Canada, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and Service Canada. That covers a lot of territory.
I'll go to the departments first and invite them to make opening statements. The first on our list, and I'll follow it, is Mr. Watson, associate deputy minister for western economic diversification.
The microphone is yours, sir.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to be here today.
Given the fact that you have a very full agenda, I will reduce my opening statement to a minimum.
[English]
I understand from our discussions with the committee's clerk that the principal interests today are around vote 35 and two aspects of it that relate to Western Economic Diversification. What I would like to say about that, just to keep my comments to a minimum and allow others to question and make their presentations, is that we had a $994,000 amount related to the Canada Business Network. We have spent $766,000 of it and committed over $300,000 further dollars of it; we cash-manage the rest. So that amount is completely spent or committed at this point in time.
The second amount that we had was related to the RInC program. This was an amount of approximately $20 million that was under vote 35. We are now well beyond the stage of authorities. We have consulted with provinces, territories, and municipalities on a number of occasions, have done outreach sessions, and have had the first deadline for applications. We have worked with the applicants in helping develop those and get them on track. We have a whole bunch in now, and at this point in time we expect to be able to make program announcements in the very short-term future. People have been working through this past weekend and this week to complete due diligence on a great many projects that we would hope to see announced in the very short-term future.
If I can leave my opening remarks with that, I'll return to you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee. I will be similarly brief.
[Translation]
I'm pleased to be here today to report on Industry Canada's progress on its commitments under the Economic Action Plan, which was passed at the end of March of this year.
After this presentation, I would be pleased to answer your questions. Today, I will speak to you more particularly about the Marquee Tourism Events Program and the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.
[English]
I ask committee members to keep in mind that the program is much broader than those two initiatives. In a relatively short period, Industry Canada has announced programs that will support the building of new recreational facilities in communities across the country, increase the availability of broadband services in rural and remote areas, update infrastructure at universities and colleges from coast to coast, and update and modernize federal research facilities.
[Translation]
I would first of all like to talk to you about the $100 million allocated to the Marquee Tourism Events Program over two years. This program's objective is to assist well-established, annual tourist events that have a track record of good programming and excellent management, as well as attracting a high number of tourists.
The program funding will result in more foreign tourists coming to Canada, which will help our tourism industry to overcome the difficulties related to the global economic crisis. Last April and June, the government announced funding for 10 events chosen within the framework of the summer 2009 program. This allocation was intended to provide critical financial assistance quickly to the tourism sector.
[English]
Let me now turn briefly to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. As committee members know, small business is a key economic engine of the Canadian economy, and we're investing a further $10 million in the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.
[Translation]
This $10 million government funding will help many young entrepreneurs discover the challenges and joys of managing their own small business. Under the foundation's loan program, young entrepreneurs can borrow up to $15,000 in start-up funds. In order to be eligible, applicants must be between the ages of 18 and 34, demonstrate that they are committed to starting up or ensuring the growth of their business in Canada and agree to work with a mentor.
[English]
Since 1996 the foundation has helped over 3,000 young entrepreneurs create more than 15,500 new jobs. Under the knowledge infrastructure program, Industry Canada has begun to commit funding that will total $2 billion to support new buildings and facilities at universities and colleges. The program responds directly to needs identified by universities and colleges, including affiliated research hospitals, CÉGEPs, publicly funded polytechnical schools, and institutes of technology across Canada.
[Translation]
For its part, the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program will invest $500 million to help Canadian communities build and upgrade arenas, pools and other recreational facilities.
Within the framework of another initiative intended to offer broadband services to rural and distant communities, we will invest $225 million to ensure that modern communication services are not only available in major centres and cities.
[English]
In conclusion, the department remains committed to the timely and targeted delivery of stimulus funds and to all these important programs. These initiatives are helping to lay a strong foundation for Canada's long-term prosperity.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my formal remarks. I thank you for the opportunity.
:
Thank you for inviting the National Research Council to your meeting.
The National Research Council is a powerful tool of the federal government, with a mandate to transform science and technology into social and economic well-being for Canada. It does this working closely with industry, and indeed working with industry has been its mandate for its whole 93-year history.
One of the key programs that NRC has for working with industry is its industrial research assistance program, or IRAP. IRAP provides innovation support to technology-based Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, and has been doing this as part of NRC for over 60 years. It delivers the program through a network of experienced technology advisers located in more than 100 communities across the country. They work directly with the SMEs to address their technology challenges with advice, guidance, and business assistance, but also some financial support.
IRAP's financial support is for R and D projects or R and D related expenses, and the cost is shared with the company, ensuring their own investment in R and D. We generally pay the cost of the salaries of the technology workers involved in the projects and do not pay general operating or infrastructure costs.
The amounts may be small, but they come at a critical time in the evolution of a small business. Last year we provided $70 million in contributions of this type to firms. There is a strong demand for these funds, and last year the program was fully committed very early in the year, as early as May.
IRAP also administers a program with funding from HRSDC to help SMEs hire graduates from universities and colleges. Through this youth program, IRAP helps the small business hire graduates by paying a portion of their salary. It's a very successful program. We've found that 91%, on average, of these students are eventually hired by the firms.
The incremental resources that IRAP received through the budget of $100 million a year for two years will be invested in these two highly successful programs: the contributions to firms for R and D and the youth program. As such, they'll use the existing IRAP terms and conditions, existing management frameworks, and existing delivery systems. This has allowed us to move quickly and to get the money into the hands of Canadian SMEs. The full $200 million will go to firms. There are no operating funds for NRC-IRAP included in this funding.
For these funds, we will use the same criteria for selecting projects as in the past, but we will be focused on selecting projects that contribute to innovations that will position these firms for the future. We're not supporting just to survive through the difficult times, but to allow them to prosper and grow when the economy turns around.
As these are well-established programs, we have robust management and control systems already in place: existing terms and conditions, standard operating procedures, a standard contribution agreement, a risk-based management framework, and lots of audits and evaluations. We've been audited seven times in the last five years.
These additional funds provided to IRAP by budget 2009 are very much appreciated, and the access to them through vote 35 was critical for their delivery. In order to optimize the expenditure of the funds, commitment authority is needed early in the year, and waiting for supplementary estimates would probably have necessitated the lapsing of funds. Since it's a large amount incrementally, in proportion to the NRC budget, we were not able to cash-manage it ourselves. Based on the experience we have with the program to date, we estimated that $76 million of the $100 million would be required from vote 35.
How are we doing with committing them? We are right on schedule. Our regular A-base contribution to firms was fully committed as of the first week of April this year. For the new funds, as of May 31, 57% of the $71 million for firms was committed, and 90% of the funding for the youth program was committed. They're moving quickly, but I want to assure you that we're treating them with the same due diligence and attention to documentation that we would in any other year.
We've committed to targets for the number of new SMEs to be reached with these funds of 720 this year and 640 next year, and for the youth program, 333 graduates supported this year and 667 next year. We are fully confident that we can meet these targets.
We're also monitoring the number of jobs supported. As of May 31, we have already identified 1,773 jobs supported in 458 new firms and 178 graduates hired through these vote 35 funds.
So the uptake of these new funds has been outstanding, and I want to thank Parliament for their continuing support of NRC and the IRAP program.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will abbreviate my remarks to reflect the time availability.
First of all, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss approved vote 35 funding of $222 million provided to AECL.
A national nuclear energy program, safety support to provincial and international reactors, isotope production, and other essential R and D require investment. Let me describe the public investment in AECL as a commercial crown corporation.
AECL currently receives an annual parliamentary appropriation, included in the main estimates, of $103 million to support the ongoing operations of the large, complex, and aging Chalk River nuclear laboratories. Incremental funding for health, safety, security, and environmental projects totalling $6 million was also included in our 2009 appropriations.
Chalk River Laboratories, which employs about 3,000 of the country's best scientists, engineers, and technical staff, is where Canada's unique and successful CANDU nuclear energy program was born in the 1940s. The primary public policy objective of Chalk River is to carry out nuclear safety research, nuclear R and D, new reactor development, isotope production, and nuclear waste management.
Budget 2009 provides a $351 million one-time cash contribution to AECL for 2009-10 operations, including ongoing support for the development of the advanced CANDU reactor and to maintain safe and reliable operations at the Chalk River Laboratories.
The vote 35 contribution approved in budget 2009 will be used as follows: $67 million for Project New Lease, which reflects capital projects and operations to upgrade the Chalk River site; $50 million to support ongoing Chalk River operations; and $105 million for the continuing advanced CANDU reactor design engineering and systems development in 2009-10.
Many of the items being funded are multi-year projects that extend beyond 2009-10. To date in 2009, we have spent $45 million on budget 2009 initiatives: $9 million for Project New Lease, $19 million for Chalk River operations, and $17 million for the ACR development.
Vote 35 funding has allowed AECL to support an estimated 1,600 positions: engineering and design jobs, construction, logistics, and security, to name just a few. Some of the funding is being used to pay for external labour and subcontractors estimated to create an additional 720 jobs outside of AECL.
AECL has a solid accountability framework and a sound governance regime in place, with appropriate mechanisms for financial oversight on spending, including approval and monitoring processes. The Chalk River projects, including PNL, are approved by the science, technology, and nuclear oversight committees of our board of directors, and they are monitored quarterly by the board.
ACR development timelines and expenditures are monitored by the project risk review committee of the board, and recently completed internal audits on both Project New Lease and advanced CANDU reactor projects were provided to the audit committee of the board. Washington Safety Management Solutions, an independent firm, reviewed the PNL plan to ensure that the infrastructure and process improvements were required to meet the regulatory and safety standards.
Specific budgets and monitoring processes are in place. Monthly and quarterly management meetings confirm we are tracking to plan.
And finally, the Office of the Auditor General reviews AECL's systems and practices and audits us on an annual basis.
To conclude, nuclear technology is a proven and reliable source of clean energy. In Canada and around the world, energy authorities are investing in nuclear power to meet energy security and climate change goals.
Continued government support for maintaining safe and reliable operations at the Chalk River Laboratories, as well as the development of the advanced CANDU reactor, will help strengthen Canada's nuclear advantage and generate significant value to Canadians through the creation of high-paying jobs. Vote 35 funding has enabled AECL to invest in these important jobs and to improve the safety of its nuclear infrastructure. It is seizing this opportunity, which is foremost in our goals at AECL, while being an effective steward of taxpayer money.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
:
Monsieur le président and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here before you today to talk about vote 35 and its implications for the supplementary estimates for 2009-10 for the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
As you heard, my name is Frank Vermaeten. I'm the new senior ADM--I emphasize the “new”--and I have a team with me here made up of Su Dazé, our acting chief financial officer; Joanne Lamothe, our assistant deputy minister of program operations; and Liliane Binette, our ADM of operations at Service Canada.
Last January the government introduced Canada's economic action plan to address the pressures facing Canada and Canadians during the global economic downturn. Many of the initiatives, programs, and services that were introduced and enhanced are being delivered by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. They are designed to support the unemployed, preserve jobs, and retrain workers for jobs of the future.
[Translation]
We are here today to discuss three HRSDC initiatives arising out of the Economic Action Plan. These did not appear in the main estimates of May 5th which came out just a few days after the announcement of the plan.
[English]
As a result, it was understood that adjustments to the main estimates would be required to ensure that new funding could flow quickly and in a timely fashion for the implementation of the stimulus measures arising from the plan. The approach taken was to seek funding through supplementary estimates (A) for $455 million as well as through Treasury Board vote 35 for $269 million.
Treasury Board vote 35 was created to provide Treasury Board ministers with the authority to approve the direct allocation of funds to supplement departmental appropriations for expenditures required before the next opportunity to obtain parliamentary approval of increased appropriations.
What this means, Mr. Chair, is that departments like HRSDC could have access to additional funding to facilitate the implementation of the economic action plan. Access to vote 35 funds is considered bridge funding that will be included in subsequent supplementary estimates. It can be used only between April 1 and June 30, 2009. We have requested access to vote 35 funds for the following three measures: first, the strategic transition and training fund in the amount of $250 million; second, $15 million for the YMCA and YWCA grants for youth internship; and last, additional funding of $4 million for the Canada summer jobs program.
Let me take a few moments to explain the specific reasons for each of these requests.
The Strategic Training and Transition Fund will provide new funding to support provincial and territorial programming to help meet the training needs of workers. The fund is worth $500 million over the next two years and will be administered through existing labour market agreements with provinces and territories. The government currently has signed agreements with nine provinces to implement the Strategic Training and Transition Fund, and we expect to sign labour market agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories in the very near future. This new Strategic Training and Transition Fund is available to all employed and unemployed Canadians, both EI- and non-EI-eligible, with a particular focus on low-skilled workers and those in communities or sectors affected by the economic downturn. It is designed to provide provinces and territories with significant flexibility, to allow them to identify labour market priorities in their regions, and to develop programs tailored to their specific and respective needs.
[Translation]
This new strategic training and transition fund is available to all employed and unemployed Canadians, both EI and non-EI eligible, with a particular focus on low-skilled workers and those in communities or sectors affected by the economic downturn.
It is designed to provide provinces and territories with significant flexibility to allow them to identify labour market priorities in their region and to develop programming tailored to their specific and respective needs.
[English]
Each province and territory will receive an allocation based on their average share of unemployed, based on data from Statistics Canada from August 2008 to January 2009. Small jurisdictions, which include P.E.I. and the territories, will receive base funding plus their proportion of funding based on the average share of unemployed for that same period. Each province and territory's allocation will be updated in 2010-11, based on the average share of unemployed from August 2009 to January 2010, to reflect changes in the number of unemployed.
Provinces and territories will receive their funding in two instalments, the first in the spring and the second by September of this year. Given that the majority of agreements were signed in late May, we are working with provinces and territories to ensure that they receive their first installment by mid-June, so in the next several weeks.
Let me now turn to the YMCA and YWCA youth internship. Through Canada's economic action plan, the federal government announced a grant of $15 million to the YMCA and YWCA to place unemployed youth in internship with not-for-profit and community service organizations with a focus on environmental projects. The internship will help young Canadians develop their skills and gain the work experience needed to secure employment. The full $15 million was obtained from Treasury Board vote 35 to enable HRSDC to sign grant agreements.
While the department has a long-standing relationship with these organizations, particularly the YMCA, the grants for youth internship is a new program. Therefore, new authorities and program tools had to be developed.
[Translation]
While the department has a long-standing relationship with these organizations, particularly the YMCA, the Grants for Youth Internships is a new program. As such new authorities and program tools had to be developed.
[English]
These steps have been completed, and the department has been working very closely with the YM-YWCA to conclude these agreements. The agreements are expected to be in place by mid-June, after which funding will flow. Internships are expected to begin this July.
Access to Treasury Board vote 35 is being requested to allow this budget 2009 initiative to move forward prior to approval of supplementary estimates (A).
Lastly let me turn to Canada summer jobs program.
[Translation]
Canada Summer Jobs is a highly-valued and popular program that helps thousands of students in virtually every community across Canada to gain work experience, while also providing extra help to organizations that deliver important community services.
[English]
Under Canada's economic action plan, additional funding in the amount of $10 per year in 2009 and 2010 was allocated to Canada summer jobs. This brings the total amount of funding for CSJ to $107.5 million in 2009 and 2010.
Of the additional $10 million, $4 million was requested under the supplementary estimates. It is an addition to the existing funding and will be distributed across the country's 308 constituencies. All applications have now been assessed, the MP validation phase has been completed, and employers have been notified of the results. Hiring of students began in May 2009.
As the program sends advance payments to the organizations by late May and early June at the latest, we are seeking access to Treasury Board vote 35 funds.
I trust this explains our rationale for using vote 35. I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you. Merci.
:
Thank you to all the witnesses.
Are any other witnesses here today who wanted to make a statement or make a presentation? I don't think there are. If there are none, then we're good here on this end.
Putting this thing in context, there are quite a number of witnesses here today, quite a number of departments. Our focus at the committee has been to review the stimulus spending as outlined in the government's budget, from the point of view of speed in the execution of the spending of the money and rule compliance. If there is a recession out there, it demands quick response. We're not saying, hurry up and comply with the rules, but we are saying, hurry up, you must comply with the rules. And lastly, someone has to be doing an account of job creation, and I know many of you have made reference to those issues here today.
So I'm going to turn to colleagues for questions. Ms. Hall Findlay, for the first eight-minute round.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, everybody. It's not normal that we get so many people, and all at the same time. It's going to be difficult for us to parse it.
I want to focus on vote 35. I want to focus on the fact that we supported the budget, and in particular vote 35, because of a recognition that in a recession we needed extra money, incremental money, out on the street, if you will.
We have heard announcements for a number of weeks now, we've heard allocations, we have heard reannouncements, but we remain concerned that there hasn't been much evidence of money that has been put out into the street that is incremental to what would otherwise be there. I say that understanding the bridging nature of vote 35. This may have allowed that bridging in terms of future timing, but we still have not had any, or very few, answers and examples of specific cheques being cut so that jobs are being created now that otherwise would not have been.
I do want to commend Ms. Mortimer. In your piece you focus on some additional jobs that have been created; Mr. Robins from AECL as well; and Mr. Vermaeten, in particular the last piece on the summer jobs. But generally I think we have from Mr. Vermaeten an acknowledgement, which we've certainly understood, that this money has to be used between April 1 and June 30. I go back to “used”. We want to know what money has gone out that's over and above what would have been out there, that has actively created jobs now and over the next few months that are incremental, that would not otherwise have been.
Perhaps I can pick Mr. Lindsey. I didn't hear so much from you. We had understood there was a fair bit, and certainly the allocations industry has a lot. Can you give me some specific examples of jobs that are being created now, that are incremental to what otherwise would have been, thanks to money that I'm hoping you can tell me has been spent so far?
:
Perhaps I could go back to the technical point with respect to vote 35, and then I'd be happy to talk about the jobs issue.
I believe I heard an understanding that the money from vote 35 actually had to be spent by the end of June; but in fact, the money must be allocated by Treasury Board by the end of June, and there is authority to spend that money right through the rest of the fiscal year.
With respect to the substance of your question, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, as an example, has received their funding. It is a program that has existed, so it will constantly be in the process of reviewing proposals from young entrepreneurs and making those allocations. I can't quantify for you the number of loans or jobs that have been created as a result of this incremental money, because it has just flowed to them.
With respect to the marquee tourism events program, we have announced support for 10 events this summer season so far. We have no evidence of the incremental job creation that might be associated with our funding. In fact, the principal objective with respect to that program was to minimize the extent to which the economic situation would result in reduced attendance at those events. So the key there is to help those events maintain or increase attendance in spite of the economic situation.
:
That's our intention. With respect to our three measures and job creation and stimulus, I'll start with the largest one, the STTF, the Strategic Training and Transition Fund, which is the biggest one. It's $500 million over two years, $250 million for this year. I'm pleased that we have an agreement with nine of the provinces. We're expecting the rest to participate. If we look at the nine provinces right now, that's 95% of the money.
We have made the commitment. Because of that commitment, provinces have gone out and adjusted their plans for the training they're going to provide. They're starting to roll out that training now. In some cases, it's immediate. In other cases, it's going to be September before people are enrolled. These are fairly sizable numbers. We're talking about having approximately 25,000 people a year on training as result of that money. It is stimulus, but it is also a longer-term investment in these people. It will help them get better jobs in the future. Some will get jobs now. Others will upgrade their skills. There's a range of possibilities.
For Canada summer jobs, I'll turn to my colleague Joanne Lamothe. But the $10 million is only an additional amount on a program that, for 2009, will be $107.5 million in total. That's a sizable program. It's a program that was already important and popular, providing young men and women with experience throughout the summer. This just builds on that.
Finally, on internship, you're correct, it's not a large amount, but this is important for a limited number of people. This is going to be delivered this summer; there are going to be job experiences right there this summer.
:
Thanks for the question.
In fact, we have announced agreements with six provinces and one of the territories so far. We expect that other announcements with respect to agreements with the provinces are imminent. At the end of the day, several hundred significant infrastructure projects will be undertaken at universities, colleges, and so forth across the country.
For the knowledge infrastructure program in particular, Industry Canada was allocated $500 million from vote 35. That represents five-sixths of our normal annual contributions budget. Without that money, we would not have been able to make the commitments we have, and the further commitments we will make, to the provinces and to these institutions. We would not have been able to do that until supplementary estimates were approved. As a result of this $500 million that we got through vote 35, together with the $500 million that was approved through the Budget Implementation Act, the statutory authority, we are able to expand greatly the amount of activity that will be carried on this summer.
I don't have with me estimates of the aggregate number of jobs that will derive from all of these projects. We just don't have it yet. The agreements are coming out so quickly that I just don't have those numbers. The number of projects will be in the hundreds—they will be right across the country—and the expectation is that the job creation will be significant, both during the construction building and renovation phase, and in subsequent phases where in fact the facilities are new.
:
Mr. Chair, you must have read my mind.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
I suppose the difficulty a lot of us are having is trying to understand why these specific allocations were chosen to go under Treasury Board vote 35. Hearing your presentations, I'm still confused. If we're to accept the economists' view that we're in this very urgent situation and the money has to get into circulation really quickly, we were asked to take a great leap of faith on very sketchy, hypothetical models. That is why we called you in here, to try to put some substance to it.
We're supposed to be the estimates committee. We're supposed to assess whether spending is a good idea or a bad idea before it happens, not study it after it happens and say whether it was good or bad. Really, what we've seen here for actually getting money into people's hands on the street, as Martha said, is pretty lame, through no fault of your own. These were not your choices.
I'm still confused as to why we get this fairly substantial brief from you, Mr. Robins, saying that nuclear technology is a proven and reliable source of clean energy. Well, some of us think, no, it's not; it's dirty, it's risky, and it's notoriously unreliable. Yet under vote 35 we get $222 million to maintain the safe and reliable operations at Chalk River.
Given what's happening there, I kind of resent this money finding its way into a package that's supposed to put money in the pockets of working people so that they can spend it and stimulate the marketplace. I don't think it belongs there. We don't have time to debate the relative merits of nuclear energy or the catastrophic events at Chalk River right now, but I don't get why it was under vote 35 at all, except that it became sort of a wish list to fast-track certain priorities for the government that go beyond any notion of stimulus.
Getting back to HRSD, the only real direct money that will really create jobs immediately is this paltry $10 million that you've added to an existing program. I've been signing off on the summer job program for 12 years, since I've been an MP. That's not new. You've tweaked it $10 million over the whole country. That doesn't even show up on the scale.
I remember, when I was a kid, OFY grants and LIP grants. Half the executive directors of non-profits in the country started out on these big, bold initiatives: opportunities for youth and local initiative programs. That put the country to work and put a generation of kids to work. It was bold, it was creative, and there's none of that in this array of things that we're asked to look at here today.
Can you tell me perhaps how the training initiative even fits under immediate stimulation of the economy? Training, by its very nature, is for the future, right? It's virtuous, but why is that under vote 35, and what does it have to do directly with stimulating the economy and putting money in the pockets of unemployed people?
:
Thank you for the question.
One of the things about this program is that it is very similar to a number of others that we actually run because we do operate a number of infrastructure programs on a regular basis.
Many of the projects that we expect to see applications from, and in fact have seen applications from, are from many of the players we dealt with in the past who are quite familiar with the general approach of the program.
What we have done is this. The program was announced on May 11, so it's now just about three weeks ago that the program was announced. We've held information sessions throughout many different provinces. Obviously there are only so many that you can hold in a three-week period, but we've held dozens of those sessions. We've been in direct contact with many different municipalities--certainly not all of them; there are hundreds, of course, across western Canada. But we've been in touch with a great number of them, and we've had conversations with provincial governments on many of these issues as well, because as you will know about the program, we will fund a certain proportion and others will have to come up with other shares of the funding. So in many cases, one of the best avenues for disseminating some of this information is our contacts with the provincial governments.
We've worked with individual proponents. We've worked with municipalities. We've worked with provinces. We have our own communications materials. In fact, on our website you can do everything from finding the application form to finding a bunch of the background.
:
Yes, and we made them put that in writing too. On the application form they have to put that information in writing for us. We will assess that to see if we think those are the right numbers.
If I can speak a little bit about the communications on this, I think by the end of day on budget day back in January, we were receiving our first calls about how people could get access to this money, and it hasn't let up since then. Since May 11--we've been tracking our calls--we've had just about 2,000 calls by this point in time. Even in that timeframe we've had just under 800 applications given to us from across western Canada, so it's had a very significant uptake.
If you were to add up all of the numbers of the total value of the projects that people have proposed, it would be a number that would be far in excess even of the amounts that we imagined we would get in. While there may certainly be people who would want and perhaps need some further information, as I say, we've had over 2,000 contacts specific to the program, which we've tracked, and we have just under 800 applications.
:
Ladies and gentlemen, I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed. Perhaps I was dreaming, but I was expecting much more definitive answers from you. I asked you a specific question about the planning of the time and performance indicators that you should have done or that you did do. I was expecting you to tell me that you had prepared such plans and that you were expecting a certain number of jobs to be created in the next month or within three months. When a department draws up plans with additional funding, officials can expect 100 jobs, for example, will be created by a particular date. At that time, the department was heading in that direction.
But this morning, I am not satisfied with the answers I have heard, and I think that several of us are not satisfied in this particular case. We understand that you cannot tell us how many jobs will be created and that you find yourself in a vicious circle. We are putting you up against the wall, and clearly you are not able to answer our questions. We know that you do good work, that you have to wait for the applications and that the applications have to be approved. In any event, this is how I am reacting to the situation.
Mr. Lindsey, in response to a question from my colleague about tourism, you said that you were primarily looking for events that would attract people. You want events that will attract many people, but will not necessarily create employment. The Classique internationale de Blainville takes place in my riding. I have been asked to create summer jobs for this competition, and the town of Blainville is also creating jobs for this event. We are expecting 25,000 people to attend the competition. If 50,000 or 60,000 people come and we do not have any money to create jobs, what are we to do?
The thinking is, given the economic climate, that there's a serious possibility that the number of tourists coming to Canada will go down. I think that's a legitimate concern. And to the extent that the concern materializes, events would hire fewer people, hotels would require fewer staff, and restaurants would require fewer staff. So we're trying to provide additional resources for those events to promote themselves so that they can try, as much as possible, to maintain attendance, and hopefully increase it, with a view to increasing the number of people who are employed directly in the event--in supporting the event and helping to carry it out--but also in the residual areas, such as the hospitality industry, the hotels, the motels, restaurants, and the incremental sales of gasoline.
There will certainly be an employment impact, but it's exceedingly difficult, particularly in advance of the events, to quantify. But certainly the expectation is that there will be an employment impact. You create employment in this world by getting people to the events.
:
Terrific. Thank you very much.
I want to focus on Mr. Lindsey, but as a general comment, going back to my earlier question, the clarification of the word “used” was that the money from vote 35 needed to be used before the end of June 2009, that it actually meant being allocated, that the money then does have to be spent in this current fiscal year.
One comment is that it seems, in reaction to that, a focus on jobs. We talked a little bit about the summer jobs. In terms of stimulus, to the extent that there has been incremental job creation, we support that. That was one of the reasons for the stimulus. However, we're very concerned that when we're doing this kind of stimulus, we also need to make sure we are creating jobs that ultimately will contribute as well to Canada's productivity, long-term economic prosperity, and global competitiveness, hence some of our earlier focus on some of the rather desperately needed infrastructure in municipalities.
As a preamble, I now move to Mr. Lindsey. I want to ask about the rural broadband program as an example. I have a number of $83 million-plus in the allocation so far. Can you do two things for me?
One, can you confirm that this is money that will actually be spent in this fiscal year? When it says, “making contributions”, can you tell me not only that this money will be spent in this fiscal year but where it will be spent? In terms of infrastructure that we need, broadband is a great idea, so I will give credit where it's due. I particularly like seeing this kind of thing in the allocations. I just want to make sure it's going to happen. And how will it be spent? Will it be spent this fiscal year, and to whom will the money go? Will it be going to the private sector or will it be going just to government employees, and what exactly will it be spent on?
I'm a little worried about the language of developing and implementing a strategy to improve access. We've been talking about the expansion of broadband for many years, so I want something a little harder than that.
:
Let me have a go, and I think I can give you some comfort.
First, though, let me confirm the amount of the allocation. It was indeed $84 million, from about $35 million for this fiscal year. The total amount of money allocated to broadband was $225 million for 2009-10 and 2010-11, with a vestigial amount going into 2011-12.
Broadband is a bit different from some of our other initiatives. Take, for example, the infrastructure program. We put out the terms and conditions. We announced the availability of the funding. A recipient with a known location and a known project applies, and we decide whether it's eligible or not. We know where it is.
One of the issues with respect to broadband is this. The undertaking is to connect remaining unserved and underserved Canadians. One of the ways we test that is through a technical test. What is the current rate of their service, if they have it at all? In other words, what is the bandwidth? It takes a while to map out the service, where service is provided, and the level of service across the country.
And thank you to the representatives from Industry Canada who are undertaking this process to get broadband across rural communities across this country. Those of us who live in these areas know that you are on the ground and that you are utilizing that money even now to do those assessments. I shared an office building with somebody from Industry Canada, who was just down the hall, who has been working on this project over the last number of months and doing these assessments. For those of us in rural communities, we appreciate your endeavour and your efforts on this front.
In terms of the different allocations that were undertaken through vote 35, Industry Canada also received an amount for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. You'll give me a better definition than I maybe have, but my understanding is that this organization allows for loans to be given to young entrepreneurs who are starting businesses and looking for ways to engage in the marketplace in their own communities. My understanding is that there has been a significant increase in the number of applications for this type of program this year.
There was $10 million allocated. I'm wondering if you could give me a little bit of a breakdown of that program, the jobs that are expected to be created as a result of that, and what the uptake or current status of that funding is.
:
In the world of contribution programs generally, when you think of people looking for work who are maybe unemployed or underemployed, there are four key conversations that happen. The first one is “We'll see”. That conversation started on January 27, when people had heard about this program and were asking themselves whether this could work for them. The question was “We'll see”; nobody knew the specific answer.
But as people were able to get more details about it, began to look at the criteria, and got further into the stage of applications, they got into another conversation, which is “Be ready”. “Be ready” goes in part to the idea that if you're going to need to show people what you're going to do, you have to hire people to do blueprints, hire engineers, hire people to get ready with environmental assessments and to advise on those fronts.
The next conversation, though, is quite critical. It's one that we enter into, and it's the “I promise” conversation. That's where we say, “We've received your application, we've looked at it, and I promise that we will reimburse this share of costs.” That's where vote 35 was critical for us, because I'm barred under the Financial Administration Act from promising to pay for something that Parliament hasn't given me the money to pay for. I can't say “I promise” unless Parliament says, “Here's the money to back that up.”
The conversation that follows immediately after “I promise” is the fourth one, which we all look forward to and which is “You're hired”.
So it's from “We'll see” to “Be ready” to “I promise” to “You're hired”.
The final conversation, which is a three word-conversation, is “Here's your cheque.” That happens months after the fact, because the way these programs are designed, for due diligence purposes we always pay after. We check their bills. We check whether they did what they said they were going to do. So they go out, they incur the costs, they get the credit that's required to do this—this is a standard practice across the federal government grant contribution world—and we pay if they did what they said.
The key one that was critical for us about vote 35 is that we would not have been able to say “I promise” had we not had the money out of vote 35 in relation to RInC, because we don't have that money available to us and so can't sign on the dotted line.
:
Thank you for your question.
[English]
In development of the economic action plan, a range of issues was considered, and certainly whether one eliminates the two-week waiting period or provides additional weeks at the end was assessed. We provided an estimate of how many people would be benefiting from the five weeks. We have that, and I can give you those numbers.
On the question of whether you get rid of the two-week waiting period, there are a number of issues. One is that, from an administrative point of view, it is just physically impossible for somebody to walk into the office and be given a cheque right away without our doing the necessary due diligence. There's always going to be a certain waiting period for processing it. I think, secondly, that from a principled point of view, this is an employment insurance program; therefore, the two-week wait is equivalent to a co-payment, such as you would have with any other kind of insurance program—for dental or medical programs.
The government could have come along and, instead of providing five weeks at the end, which it does now, provided two weeks at the front and three weeks at the end for the same amount of money. But it would have been an administrative nightmare. You would have gotten rid of the deductible principle. You would have had many people coming in to make very short claims, and when they found a job three or four days later, they would have had a very small insurance cheque, with significant administrative costs.
To sum up, it's a question of how you want to supply these benefits. Is it up front, where it's extremely difficult to do, where it's extremely administratively burdensome, and where you're moving away from the insurance principle, or at the back end, where people are more likely to need this funding?
:
I accept that the EI program had its own potential built-in escalators too.
Okay, thank you for answering that question.
There were a couple of members who wanted to ask a couple of questions, but we don't have enough time. On behalf of colleagues, I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming. Some of you had only about a week's notice, and I appreciate the information you've brought to the committee. It has been useful to committee members and, I hope, the House. So thank you for attending.
I'll just point out that we have received from the Public Service Commission a very apt and important report with respect to previous appearances. I hope you'll have a chance to look at it before the next meeting with them.
I see no further business, so we can adjourn.