Government Operations Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Daniel Watson]

There are two sides to the coin. On one side, we have the Canada Business centres, which entrepreneurs will continue to visit, as they have been doing, and will continue to do what they do to create employment. We have been very familiar with their activities over the past 15 years or so.

On the other side of the coin, we have a model that is recognized worldwide and managed by Statistics Canada. Experts at Statistics Canada analyze the jobs created in a number of fields, particularly with regard to infrastructure issues, since we are mostly talking about the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program. This field of endeavour is well recognized, and statisticians have been doing analysis in this field for a long time.

One of the very specific questions we asked on all the applications that we received was how many jobs would be created with these projects. So we have two ways of seeing this: on the one hand, we have the number that they are telling us, and on the other hand, we have the number from the check done by Statistics Canada using the statistical model that is recognized worldwide.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Brown, for eight minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I am interested in some of the Industry Canada comments on how vote 35 assisted with a knowledge infrastructure program that had been expedited.

I had the pleasure of being in Simcoe County on Friday, where Minister Milloy from Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government, along with Minister Goodyear from the Canadian government, were there announcing a project for Georgian College that was substantial in size. It was a $65 million project, of which the provincial and federal governments contributed $20 million each.

They said at the time of the announcement that 181 construction jobs were created starting on July 1. When it actually opens a year and half from now, there would be 400 full-time and part-time jobs. I thought these job numbers were wonderful and spoke to a story that's not getting out there enough.

Do you have similar job numbers that you're hearing back from colleges involved in these programs? Are you hearing that there's going to be significant jobs created like that one, but across the country?

[Kevin Lindsey]

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.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I would encourage you to gather that data, if it's possible. I realize everything's happening very quickly, but if other projects are as successful as this one, that's an incredible story for communities. It's a powerful boost to have 181 immediate jobs and 400 permanent ones. That's something special for a community.

I wanted to mention another thing that I heard at the announcement. As I said, the provincial Liberal minister, when he was working with Minister Goodyear, also praised something else, and I'd like to get your comment on it. He said that the pace was incredible. He said it was an eight-week pace, which is unheard of, from when this knowledge infrastructure program was signed with the Province of Ontario until the actual announcement.

Can you speak a little bit about the unusually quick pace?

[Kevin Lindsey]

I can certainly agree that the pace has been extraordinary. It took time to think about the design of the program, the kinds of projects that would be eligible, and the institutions that would be eligible. It took time to negotiate the agreements with the provinces. It took time to design the terms and conditions of the program. There was also the aspect of breadth; this is $2 billion over two fiscal years, and that's three and a half times what our department would normally spend on all of its grants and contributions programs together. It's a staggering undertaking, so we continue to think about how we will carry out and implement the due diligence that will be required to ensure value for these investments that we're making.

Yes, the pace has been extraordinary, we think. To have announced on the timeline we did is quite extraordinary.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

It's heartening to hear, and I know that for those looking for work out there, it's great to see the pace being so unparalleled compared to previous programs or attempts.

Another thing I wanted to touch upon was the recreational infrastructure investment, the RInC funding. I always like to look at things through the lens of my own riding. I know that on Monday night our council passed a motion putting an application in for RInC, and I want to know if you're seeing numerous municipalities around the country putting those applications in. Is there a lot of intake on this program, given that it requires participation of other levels of government?

[Kevin Lindsey]

On RInC, the department received an allocation of about $47 million from vote 35. That allocation was necessary in order for us to make any commitments over this construction season to that program. Just because of the aggregate magnitude of the incremental programming, we simply could not absorb it within our reference level.

In fact, vote 35 was necessary for all these initiatives, but with respect to RInC in particular, the program was announced on May 11, and we closed the window to applications on May 29, simply on the volume that we had received. The program, or our part of it, is significantly oversubscribed, so we will spend the coming time evaluating projects with a view to making allocation decisions.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

The other thing I wanted to touch upon is tourism funding. I come from a region of Ontario that's a popular tourist destination. Specifically, the Muskokas are north of my riding. I understand that vote 35 expedited some of the tourism funding, and I wanted to know if expedited funds would be able to market Canada as early as this summer. Can any of those tourism dollars allocated in vote 35 actually be utilized this summer to promote our tourism sector and create jobs in Canada through additional tourism?

[Kevin Lindsey]

In total, the marquee tourism events program was allocated $100 million over two years. It will receive $50 million this year and $50 million next year. With respect to this year, the department sought and received an allocation from vote 35 for $30 million of the $50 million. Of the $30 million we've received from vote 35, about $29.5 million has been committed, so as those events begin to unfold and incur costs, that money will begin to be spent. Again, we would not have been able to do that were it not for the vote 35 allocation.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

In the context of touring, Mr. Martin, you're always welcome in Chalk River, of course—the town of Chalk River.

You have eight minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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?

[Frank Vermaeten]

Thank you for that question.

I think if you take the economic action plan as a whole, there's a whole range of measures out there, some that involve directly—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, but most of it's incomprehensible gobbledygook, frankly. We still want to know: This $3 billion buys how many jobs, and how soon can they start work? Can they show up tomorrow morning? The shovel-in-the-ground projects I understand. Some of this other program tweaking is just more of the same.

[Frank Vermaeten]

HRSDC's primary area was part of the Canada skills and transition strategy, which was essentially $8.3 billion over two years. Yes, we've talked here about vote 35 and to get the appropriations of $250 million for training, as well as two additional measures: the Canada summer jobs program and the YM-YWCA internship. That's only part of that strategy. The biggest part of the funding from our department actually came through the EI account and the EI measures.

So you need to look at the totality of it when you're thinking about how many jobs it created, how many jobs it preserved, and how much financial support it provided to Canadians. If you look at that, you have to look at the totality here.

Through the EI account, we've provided the additional five weeks of employment insurance, which is—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You didn't do anything about eligibility. If you don't qualify for EI, an extra five weeks at the other end doesn't do you any good; plus that's not your money. EI is not your money. You don't pay one nickel into the EI fund. That's our money. That's working people's money.

[Frank Vermaeten]

It's taxpayers' money, yes, absolutely.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's not taxpayers' money. It's not your--

[Frank Vermaeten]

Both CRF money and the EI account money is taxpayers' money, so you have the EI account and you have the five weeks. You have the career transition assistance that is about to be launched, which allows people to be on training and provides part I benefit support for up to 104 weeks. You have work sharing, and there are over 100,000 participants in Canada, and that's saving jobs right now. You have the labour market development agreements. It's $500 million a year of additional money for training, so when you put all that together it's very substantial in terms of money that's ending up in the pockets of Canadians, and in terms of benefits, and in terms of training support.

Some of that is direct stimulus. Some of that is indirect stimulus--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

And a lot of it is out of the EI fund, which has nothing to do the Government of Canada's coffers. You didn't have to come to us to ask for money to spend out of the EI fund. It's not vote 35. It's not even in the budget.

[Frank Vermaeten]

It's part of the EI account, which has its own processes for authorizing that funding and is paid for by the Canadian taxpayers.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Let's not get that mixed up with what the government is paying to stimulate the economy, because that money is solely contributions from the employees and their employers. The Government of Canada stopped paying into it in 1986. That $50 billion surplus would be coming in pretty handy right now if we actually put it to income maintenance instead of you guys hiving it off to use it for general revenue.

I say “you guys”, not you guys there.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It wasn't them.