Public Accounts Committee on April 7th, 2022

[Karen Hogan]

In our perspective, these are ineligible expenses because we believe that with the national eligibility criteria and the national outline of what was eligible, they should not have been paid out. However, the regional development agencies did not apply that consistently, as I said previously. At times they applied them differently, and that's why this occurred, hence the difference of opinion on our recommendation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

We will now move on, for two and a half minutes, to Monsieur Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As part of this discussion, I would like to put forward an idea that I like and is quite important to me. It is something I did a study on in my riding. It is also included in the Bloc Québécois's demands, in our budget expectations. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping to hear something along these lines this afternoon. We would like to see the government create regional funds to support local innovation. The important point here is that these would be projects carried out by and for the regions. We're talking about economic development and diversification geared towards the innovative secondary processing of Quebec's natural resources, particularly in the areas of electric vehicle batteries, aluminum, forestry, and agriculture and agri-food. We could even have a tax credit for people living in rural areas.

In its platform, the Bloc Québécois also talks about land development. The Bloc Québécois proposes to regionalize regional development programs by decentralizing Canada Economic Development and entrusting the money to regional funds that will enable the regions to manage their priorities independently. Decisions on the future of our regions must no longer be made from Ottawa, but in the regions. The purpose of a regional agency is to meet a regional need; it is more attuned to the realities of the areas it represents.

My question is for Ms. Brassard, from FedNor.

Would you agree that the decentralization of program funding could be more effective in meeting regional needs? Managing their own funds would enable the regions to make decisions together with the community, which would improve consistency and efficiency. We could do more than what is being done now.

[Manon Brassard]

We have offices in most Quebec regions, including Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. Our employees understand the needs of the regions quite well. They are partners in the regions and work together with all local economic stakeholders. They are therefore well positioned to examine projects in collaboration with all parties involved.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In that regard, I would like to see more transparency and consultation. The discussions could be made public. Personally, I greatly miss the regional development councils we had in Quebec for a long time.

I will come back to the fund we are discussing now, which was established in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic. Wouldn't it be a good idea to renew this program to provide assistance to our SMEs or very small businesses that are still struggling with the effects of the pandemic, or even to make this funding ongoing?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Could we have a short answer, please?

[Manon Brassard]

For now, this fund is closed. However, we still have our regular programs, which are designed to make the economy greener and more innovative. We need to consider that aspect as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

Now, for two and a half minutes, we have Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Again, thank you to my colleagues. We've had good questions thus far.

I want to return to the issue of some of the reporting and the recommendations made by the Auditor General. I'll point your attention to section 14.32 in the report, under recommendations, which mentions that for future programs, the federal economic development agencies for northern Ontario, southern Ontario, the Prairies and the Pacific, and the other regional development agencies “should establish targeted levels of support for under-represented groups and ensure that information is collected” and used to inform decision-making.

I want to note that the agency said it “partially agreed”. This is concerning in some ways, because we want to make sure that we have real progress on the GBA+ analysis of some of this work, and data is critical to that.

I want to really remind officials, particularly Mr. Jones, of the fact that not reporting and/or not even collecting this information is a critical error in our ability to make good decisions, and it brings a judgment on our institutions when we don't do this effectively, particularly in light of the fact that other economic diversification agencies have collected it. It's a glaring fact that we're lagging behind, in the western diversification branch in particular, in relation to the other two agencies.

Why has the agency only partly agreed to this recommendation?

[Dylan Jones]

Thank you.

Honourable Chair and committee members, I accept the criticism on data collection. Bluntly, if we were going to do this all over again, we would have collected more data at the front end and less at the end, right? We would have collected more up front.

Our approach was about just being quick and easy for people. That was our approach, but it led to the situation we're in now, and I accept that criticism. On that part, we would do it differently in a similar situation.

Just to explain the “partly agreed”, it relates to setting targets for this kind of program, so please understand that my comment is not about setting targets in general. There are often programs.... We talked earlier about the importance of getting the number of indigenous-owned businesses up in general. There are places where targets make sense, but for an emergency backstop program, if we had tried up front to ration the program, we would have had to get it right, because if you ration the program, it means that money is not available for people who don't meet however you've rationed it.

I don't know if that made sense, but the point is—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. The interpreter just informed us that the poor quality of the connection is making it impossible to provide adequate interpretation.

[Dylan Jones]

I see.

Will it help if I speak slowly?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Your time is up.

Mr. Lemire, can you hear?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

It is Mr. Jones who is still having the Wi-Fi connection problem.

Perhaps—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What I'm saying is that the interpreter just informed us that the connection was too poor for the interpretation to continue. The working conditions of interpreters are vitally important. In fact we just adopted measures to allow—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

I actually can't hear the French translation myself. I think it might be on our end.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It seems to be working now. Thank you. I think we can continue.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Let's move on to Mr. Duncan for five minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Ms. Hogan, I'd like to follow up with you on paragraph 14.50. Mr. Patzer talked about that—the money allocated to ineligible applicants and the status of repayment. Just in the interests of time, would you be willing to table with the committee the number of cases you identified that may have been ineligible, and then perhaps the percentage?

You obviously didn't audit every single transaction or recipient, but could you table the percentage, perhaps, of ones that were identified as ineligible expenses among the ones you audited? Would that be a reasonable request for the committee to make?

[Karen Hogan]

I can probably give it to you now, but we can absolutely follow up with it in writing if you prefer.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I appreciate that. There are a few things I want to get on the record, so I appreciate your doing that in the interests of time.

To the economic development agencies, in the interests of time, as opposed to asking all of you for a yes or no, I will put it the other way. Would anybody object to tabling with the committee the following: the number of cases you identified later, in any reviews or perhaps through the Auditor General, of any businesses that were ineligible or had ineligible expenses? Would you be willing to table with the committee the number of cases or recipients identified as not using the money appropriately or as ineligible?

Regarding the status of the remedy of that, are you looking to recoup that money, or are you just deeming that not an option at this time? What is your plan to do that?

If our committee were to ask for this in our report, would anybody object to regular intervals for those updates, so that perhaps every quarter or a couple of times a year you'd update those numbers on the number of cases and what those repayment statuses are? I'm not talking specific names per se, but the number of cases and what actions your agencies are taking to rectify that.

Would anybody have an issue with doing so? I don't see any objections. I appreciate that.

I will ask the same thing, perhaps, as well—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I want to understand the member's question. Was it for the panellists, or was it a question for the committee members?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Could you please clarify?