Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 27 - Evidence - February 18, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this evening, we will continue our study on the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
[English]
We study the Main Estimates throughout the year and produce a final report at the end of the fiscal year. As honourable senators will know, the end of the fiscal year is coming up pretty quickly. I'm sure our witnesses will say they've been working night and day on the estimates for next year. We may well see you back for that particular occasion; but we would like to finish up the work — and this is probably our last meeting — on the Main Estimates for this fiscal year. I know we're already starting our report.
For the last two meetings, we have been dealing with development agencies and will continue with that this evening. When we finish this evening's session, honourable senators will know that one development agency, northern Ontario, which is part of Industry Canada, will remain to speak to on another occasion. We'd like to think we got all the important ones here this evening and at the last meeting.
This evening we are pleased to welcome officials from two of our economic development agencies. From the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, we welcome Janet King, President; Mitch Bloom, Vice President; and Yves Robineau, Chief Financial Officer.
From the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, we welcome Susan Anzolin, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch; and Alain Beaudoin, Vice President, Policy, Partnerships & Performance Management.
I would propose that we go north first, if that's okay, and then we'll come back to the development agency for southern Ontario. Ms. King, you have the floor.
Janet King, President, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Janet King and I am the President of CanNor, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. As noted, I have with me my colleagues, Mitch Bloom, Vice President; and Yves Robineau, Chief Financial Officer.
We're very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the committee on the topic of our 2014-15 Main Estimates and about CanNor's mandate to advance economic development in Canada's three territories.
CanNor is a relatively young regional development agency created just over five years ago and is the only federal government department headquartered in the North. The agency's mandate is to foster a diversified, sustainable and dynamic economy in the North.
The 2014-15 Main Estimates for the agency totaled $30.9 million, with an additional $21.6 million provided through Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B), increasing the total appropriation to $52.5 million and about 90 planned positions. This compares to $50.8 million in actual spending in fiscal year 2013-14.
[Translation]
The agency delivers on its mandate through funding programs; the services of the Northern Projects Management Office; through policy, research and advocacy; and by working alongside our partners.
CanNor currently has 78 staff across our four offices. Nearly 70 per cent of our employees work out of our three northern offices, located in the territorial capitals.
The agency delivers its programs and services based on our program alignment architecture, which has two main program areas: economic development, and policy and alignment.
To foster economic development, CanNor seeks to strengthen northern businesses and build capacity in communities to help create conditions for success. CanNor has two key contribution programs to advance economic development.
[English]
The first is Strategic Investments in Northern Economic Development, SINED, which was renewed in Budget 2014 for $40 million over two years through Supplementary Estimates (A). This program focuses on improving key sectors of the economy, economic diversification and improving participation in the economy.
The second is the Northern Aboriginal Economic Opportunities Program, or NAEOP, which was streamlined in April 2014 to focus on Aboriginal economic opportunities. It has an allocation of $10.8 million annually to support Aboriginal business development, as well as community planning and capacity building.
In addition, CanNor is investing $27 million over five years for the Northern Adult Basic Education Program, which is delivered by the three northern colleges to improve basic literacy in order to better position northerners to participate in the labour market.
Since 2009, CanNor has invested over $208 million in over 950 projects to advance economic development across the North. In 2014-15, every dollar invested by CanNor has leveraged an additional $2.22 in investments in shared priorities from partners.
The second program area is policy and alignment. This activity includes research and analysis to develop effective policies and programs. It also supports our engagement efforts, including working with project proponents, and engaging territorial governments and Aboriginal organizations to align our efforts and to invest in shared priorities, as well as the Northern Projects Management Office's, NPMO, role in coordinating federal regulatory efforts and Crown consultations.
The Northern Projects Management Office works with industry, communities and government partners to advance resource development across the North. NPMO is currently working with over 30 companies to shepherd resource projects through the regulatory process. These projects represent a potential for $22.2 billion in capital investment and over 10,000 operating jobs in the North. Through its systematic coordination and engagement with stakeholders, Aboriginal organizations and other levels of government, NPMO has set aggressive service standards to advance resource projects through the regulatory system and, so far, has met these standards 100 per cent of the time.
[Translation]
Under its Community Readiness Initiative, the agency is taking an innovative community consultation approach to help northerners prepare and plan in advance of resource development to better manage the socio-economic impacts from the development. This two-year initiative, which received funding through the Strategic Partnership Initiative at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, is being piloted in six communities in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, and we'll soon be launching it in the Yukon, as well.
Together, all of these efforts support the agency's organizational priorities for 2014-15 to strengthen the northern economy, including focusing on key relationships, and to advance responsible resource development in the North.
Recognizing that CanNor is still maturing as an organization, the agency also remains focussed on ensuring that we have solid financial and human resources, and business processes in place and aligned to deliver on our mandate.
[English]
We have systematically addressed all of the recommendations made in the Auditor General's 2014 spring report. Almost all are completed, and we are on track to increase our staff complement at our headquarters in Iqaluit, as committed. We are also learning to integrate performance measures in our business practices and decisions. For example, following improvement to our internal business processes, complete project applications are being acknowledged within 10 days over 93 per cent of the time, and project approvals are occurring within service standards nearly 90 per cent of the time.
CanNor is committed to delivering effective and efficient programs and services for northerners that respond to the unique economic opportunities and challenges in Canada's North.
Thank you. I would be pleased to take any questions.
[Translation]
I would be pleased to take questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. That's quite detailed and I'm sure will stimulate some questions, but we will go on to the other development agency, southern Ontario, first. Ms. Anzolin, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Susan Anzolin, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario: Good evening Mr. Chair and esteemed committee members. My colleague, Alain Beaudoin, and I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you representing the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, commonly known as FedDev Ontario.
[English]
My remarks today will focus on three things: a brief overview of FedDev Ontario's successes in its first five years; FedDev Ontario's efforts to build on the successes of the first five years with its renewed mandate; and the importance of creating strong partnerships across southern Ontario to drive economic growth and prosperity.
[Translation]
FedDev Ontario was launched in 2009 — a time marked by global economic challenges, and a time when southern Ontario was experiencing disproportionate economic hardship.
[English]
Our role has evolved from the early years, wherein we first injected funding through stimulus projects. We are now investing in more strategic, long-term projects.
In total, over its first five years, FedDev Ontario invested almost $1.2 billion across southern Ontario.
[Translation]
On April 1, 2014, the agency entered into its second mandate with a renewed commitment to strengthen southern Ontario's economic capacity for innovation, entrepreneurship and collaboration.
[English]
The Economic Action Plan 2013 provided the agency with $920 million over five years. As indicated in our Main Estimates, we have $206.8 million in total funding authorized for this year, which is a combination of contributions and operating monies.
We consulted recipients and other stakeholders to help to inform our new programming so that southern Ontario businesses can compete within an increasingly globalized market, improve productivity and accelerate innovative ideas and research into the marketplace.
[Translation]
We responded by launching the Southern Ontario Prosperity Initiatives. This suite of programming includes four elements: investing in business innovation, investing in business growth and productivity, investing in commercialization partnerships, and investing in regional diversification.
[English]
In addition, the agency administers the Advanced Manufacturing Fund, the Eastern Ontario Development Program, the Community Futures Program and the Economic Development Initiative.
We also support Infrastructure Canada by delivering infrastructure programming in the region.
[Translation]
One of the common elements of all of our programming is partnerships. Through partnerships, FedDev Ontario helps bring innovative products and services to market, resulting in economic growth, job creation, and investment in research and development.
[English]
Our partnerships with thousands of organizations, including businesses and communities across southern Ontario, are key to encouraging continued economic growth. As an example, southern Ontario manufacturers that export can benefit from FedDev Ontario's recent investment in the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters SMART Advanced Technologies for Global Growth Program.
[Translation]
To give you another example, FedDev Ontario works in partnership with the 36 Community Futures Development Corporations across southern Ontario to support economic development and diversification in smaller communities.
[English]
FedDev Ontario works closely with industry, universities and other key stakeholders, and we have built strategic relationships with the Province of Ontario and our federal partners, including Industry Canada, the National Research Council, the Business Development Bank of Canada, and Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. We also work with CanNor and our other regional development agencies across the country that collectively provide a rich and unique on-the-ground resource to inform government-wide policy making.
We act as co-investor, delivery agent, convener and champion for the region so as to build its competitive advantage.
Ontario is a cornerstone of Canada's economy.
[Translation]
FedDev Ontario is dedicated to spurring the economic prosperity of the region.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I thank you once again for this invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Anzolin. How many employees do you have in your group?
Ms. Anzolin: In the agency, we have 230.
The Chair: And how do you define southern Ontario?
Ms. Anzolin: Good question. Our catchment area is from Windsor all the way up to just below Algonquin Park and reaching all the way over to eastern Ontario, including Ottawa. It's made up of 37 census division areas.
The Chair: We know what you have received in Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A) and (B), each of your agencies. We'll be dealing with Supplementary Estimates (C) maybe as of tomorrow, but we haven't seen them yet. Are either of you hoping to get any funds in Supplementary Estimates (C)?
Ms. Anzolin: No.
Ms. King: No.
The Chair: Thank you. So we know what we're dealing with.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have three questions for the group from Ontario. On the first page, you say that you will talk about FedDev Ontario's efforts to renew its mandate.
Are you unsure that the mandate will be renewed? That's my understanding. You don't seem to be sure that the mandate will continue. I find it strange that the agency has to prove to the government that it has done a good job. Those are your words. Could you expand on that?
As for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, you are saying that, in six years — from 2009 to 2015 — you have invested $208 million, or some $34 million per year. The amount is about $50 million now. Are you planning any new initiatives?
In terms of training, you talked about $27 million over 5 years, or $5.4 million a year. Who is in charge of training and in what sector is the training provided? I would also like to know what your operating costs are. What are the operating costs covered by your $52-million budget?
The Chair: There were a few questions in your presentation. Did you take notes? Okay, go ahead. That was just a comment, if you wanted to add anything.
Ms. Anzolin: The agency's mandate was renewed in 2013. So we received another five-year mandate as of April 1, 2014.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Okay. Let's move on to the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.
Ms. King: You had three questions, if I recall correctly. There was the question about our operating costs. What I would say — allow me to answer in English.
[English]
We have about 27 per cent operating costs. That's if we calculate across. What we read of other RDAs is that the range goes from 13 per cent to 27 per cent. We top out at 27 per cent. We also have very high costs in the North. Included in that is $2 million to $3 million worth of northern benefits that accrue to our employees. About 70 per cent of our employees are in the North and they are entitled to certain northern benefits. When we take that into account, it brings our operating expenditures down to 24 per cent and within range. With that, too, we also have very high operating costs in terms of travel across the North.
[Translation]
So that is the breakdown of our operating costs.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What about training?
Ms. King: The Northern Adult Basic Education Program, which we deliver in all the northern colleges, includes training.
[English]
The three northern colleges deliver those programs, those services, based out of their campuses in the North.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Is it a trade or basic education?
Ms. King: It's a combination. It increases the availability of courses across the communities in the North. It improves the learning centres across the North to deliver adult basic education. It's supporting partnerships between Aboriginal institutions and territorial governments, so quite broadly based. It includes trades; it includes basic education and expands the reach of the colleges for adult basic education.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You gave us the figure for six years. If I take an average it's $34 million, but let's say now it's higher. Did you offer more programs at the beginning, or is it the same thing?
[Translation]
Yves Robineau, Chief Financial Officer, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: The $208 million represents only contributions. So that works out to about $35 million to $40 million a year in contributions that are related to our contribution expenditures. This does not include our operating costs, which amount to about $15 million a year.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Thank you very much. I could question you all night, but unfortunately the chairman will keep me quiet.
Ms. King, how do you work with Indian and Northern Affairs? Are you part of them or separate from them? How does it work?
Ms. King: We're a separate agency. We're a stand-alone agency that reports directly to Minister Aglukkaq. Our relationship with AANDC is as colleagues.
Senator Eaton: Do you coordinate your programs?
Ms. King: We work quite closely and collaboratively. They do support us, as well, in some of our administrative services.
Senator Eaton: In your speech, you talked about approach to help northerners prepare and plan in advance of resource development to better manage the socio-economic impacts from the development. We've certainly heard here in the South how pipelines to most Aboriginal communities are an anathema. With pipelines, I guess there's gas and fracking. What do you do to prepare them in advance? Are you trying to find out what the communities could bear or what they want out of that kind of development?
Ms. King: If I may clarify the reference in my statement to AANDC. AANDC manages a fund called the Strategic Partnerships Initiative that enables investment in Aboriginal business and we have benefited from working with them in that initiative to fund some of our community readiness.
To answer your question more completely, I'd like to turn to Mr. Bloom, who works very closely with some of the issues that you're asking about.
Mitch Bloom, Vice President, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency: Thank you for the question. We're actually quite proud of the fact that long before any resource development project goes into even environmental assessment, we're working with communities, industry and our territorial partners. Some very concrete things we do, to give you an example, before environmental assessment we will get together that group of partners to talk about that project. It's really a wonderful thing, long before the engineers are finished their design of a site, to think about what the community thinks about that and can you do things a little differently. That's on the actual project.
As Ms. King pointed out, we're also pretty excited about our community readiness work. Again, years before a project is into environmental assessment, we're on the ground working with communities to understand the socio-economic impacts, the good and sometimes the not so good, so we can mitigate those effects.
All across the North in all three territories, it is actually a requirement of our environmental assessment process to do that work. So, for all the right reasons, long before we're ever into examining the specifics of environmental assessment, we are working with communities.
Senator Eaton: It's too bad Alberta and B.C. didn't use you. It could have saved us all a lot of heartbreak.
May I ask a question on Ontario?
The Chair: I thought you were going to follow up on a question you had asked earlier, so if you don't, I will.
Senator Eaton: Oh no, I'll let you follow up. You usually do.
We've just came from the Foreign Affairs Committee where we heard about Canada's trade and how export outside the United States has remained very static. In fact, we've lost ground or remained the same.
What do you do in southern Ontario to help companies? If we sign the TPP — which we'll probably do; we've signed European trade — do you have a specific mandate where you help companies prepare to export or get them to be a bit more entrepreneurial, shall I say?
Ms. Anzolin: Mr. Chairman, I will allow Alain to answer that question.
Alain Beaudoin, Vice President, Policy, Partnerships & Performance Management, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario: Thank you for the question. You're absolutely right. Diversification of exports is a challenge that companies are facing. Obviously, our colleagues that you met at Foreign Affairs and Trade have the lead in terms of working with firms and trying to diversify their exports. One thing, though, is that we do work with them cooperatively to try to find ways in order to diversify the exports.
We have a program that Ms. Anzolin referred to briefly. It's called Investing in Business Growth and Productivity. That program tries to support firms that are already present in global value chains, trying to support their efforts to increase their productivity and their competitiveness but also their ability to diversify their own exports.
Senator Eaton: Are you into the car industry?
Mr. Beaudoin: Not the car. This is for manufacturers per se.
Senator Eaton: Manufacturers only.
Mr. Beaudoin: Yes.
Senator Eaton: Following up, Chairman Mockler here took the Agriculture Committee to Niagara to see some of those huge greenhouses, those 50-acre greenhouses that grow tomatoes or green peppers, which are quite extraordinary. We heard all day long how they wanted to move out because of the cost of hydro and the taxes and that states like New York and Michigan were trying to lure them and had much more competitive rates. Do you have to deal with the Ontario government? You're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. You can only do so much. How do you deal with that?
Mr. Beaudoin: We work closely with the Province of Ontario; and we try to undertake some projects together where it does make sense.
You're right that some of the companies are facing competitive issues. Canada, as a whole, is facing increased competition, but that competition is global as much for attracting and retaining investments as for how they will compete in other markets.
Take a few steps back and look in terms of market framework policies and the measures that the government has put in place over the last few years to try to increase the competitiveness of those firms, while ensuring they have low tax rates. The corporate tax rate in Canada is very low compared to the rest of the G7 countries. It supports the ability of these firms to compete.
A lot of it, as well, will be determined by the ability of those firms to increase their competitiveness and productivity. One thing we focus on as an agency, working with our partners, is figuring out how we can support a firm's ability to increase their productivity and competitiveness. For example, we provided a $20 million contribution to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. In return, they work with those manufacturers to try to increase their adoption of technologies.
Senator Eaton: I don't disagree with you, but when you have these huge greenhouses threatening to move to Michigan or upper New York State because our hydro rates are so expensive, I guess there is nothing you can do about that.
Ms. Anzolin: There are certain things under our control in terms of our mandate as the Government of Canada and that's where we try to focus our efforts. As Alain indicated, the Province of Ontario is an important partner. We work with the province to try to address some of these issues, but in terms of FedDev Ontario we look at supporting these greenhouses through programs. We funded Vineland, as an example, and a number of other key clients in southern Ontario, where the food and beverage industry is a huge sector, perhaps the second most important exporting sector within southern Ontario. Manufacturing is first and then food processing is second.
You're right. It's an important area for us and we're looking at ways to invest in this area through our programming.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have one specific question and one general question for the two witnesses. My specific question is for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. I am looking at the changes in the Main Estimates and wondering why the operating expenditures have increased, while the subsidies and contributions have decreased. Can you explain this to me?
Ms. Anzolin: The contributions have decreased this year compared with last year because the infrastructure program sunsetted. That explains the discrepancy between last year's and this year's contributions.
I will now answer the question on operating costs. Those costs have risen with the addition of Canada Business Ontario, which used to be under the Industry Canada umbrella. That organization is now part of our agency. It is a very important entity, as it provides services to businesses across southern Ontario.
Mr. Beaudoin: Canada Business Ontario is a service that provides information to young entrepreneurs and anyone who wants to start up a business. It provides the National Research Council's IRAP service and concierge service across Canada.
Senator Bellemare: I will now move on to more general questions. I have a stake in this. We have to take care of the country's economic development, which is an important mission for governments. The economic development mission is often poorly understood by the public. People wonder how the expenditures are evaluated, how an economic development strategy can be created and how plans and priorities are established.
My question is for both groups. How do you develop your vision of economic development for the regions you serve? How do you evaluate your actions? When an agency grants subsidies and contributions, we sometimes wonder whether that is worthwhile or whether it yields results. The results can be more or less significant, depending on the strategy adopted. Can you give me a structured explanation of how you establish your plans and priorities and how you evaluate your action?
Ms. King: First, I would say, we work closely with our partners from the far north to understand the private and public priorities in the three northern territories. We often hold discussions with the community leaders in each territory.
Senator Bellemare: Do you have statutory advisory councils?
Ms. King: No, but we have a number of conversations. We just implemented an engagement and consultation strategy to ensure that we are hearing the needs of the far north. After that, we developed a strategic plan within our departments for the next five years in order to better focus on our investment objectives based on information from all over and the analysis of that information.
Senator Bellemare: Is that how you know that each dollar invested generates $2.2 in private investments?
Ms. King: We are still young. We are just beginning to develop our performance measures. We use certain processes to gauge exactly what you are asking — our targets and our impact — so as to determine whether our services are effective. We are trying to increase our performance measurement every year to ensure that we are doing our best.
Mr. Beaudoin: I would like to answer your question and add to what Ms. King said. We are a young organization, created in 2009. We have evaluated some of the programs. Like CanNor and any other government agency, our mandate is to constantly evaluate our programs and initiatives.
We have already evaluated some programs, and the results are positive. However, we are still trying to further our evaluation to figure out how much of an impact we are having. We are currently evaluating the suite of programs that were implemented in our first five-year mandate. We have established a partnership with Statistics Canada in order to determine how we are doing compared with similar entities that have received the agency's support and others that have not received any funding. We are trying to determine whether the agency's contributions have had a more significant impact.
To your second point, as far as setting priorities and policies is concerned, when the department or agency was renewing its mandate, numerous consultations with economic stakeholders were held. Not only did we consult externally, involving the business community, non-profit organizations and other key stakeholders, but we also consulted internally, within the agency and with the minister. We used that feedback to more effectively set and direct our priorities.
In addition, one of our standing priorities is to follow through on key government initiatives — including strategies promoting the digital economy, science, technology and innovation — in order to better support businesses and economic development.
Senator Bellemare: What I gather is that you have relationships with partners such as Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. Are they on the receiving end of contributions or do they help you set priorities? Or both?
Mr. Beaudoin: Both.
Senator Chaput: My first question is for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Could you describe your relationship with economic development representatives from Ontario's francophone community? What kind of dealings do you have with the francophone population?
Ms. Anzolin: I will let Alain answer that.
Mr. Beaudoin: First, I'd just like to say that the agency is extremely proud to provide service in both official languages, together with various partners and businesses. As we mentioned earlier, we offer bilingual services to all the Ontario businesses we serve.
Our other initiative, which you are, of course, familiar with, revolves around economic development. We work with a variety of organizations to support them in their pursuit of economic diversification; those organizations range from non-profit agencies to stakeholders that work to promote economic or business growth in the regions.
Senator Chaput: They can interact with you in French. Your information is available in both official languages.
Mr. Beaudoin: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Can they submit project funding applications in French, or do they have to be translated into English?
Mr. Beaudoin: No. They can submit them to us in French.
Senator Chaput: My other question is for Ms. King or one of the representatives from the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. It pertains to the funding you receive to support economic development and opportunities for Aboriginals in Canada's North. What are the main obstacles to economic participation faced by Aboriginal peoples in the North? At a previous committee meeting, we were told that Aboriginals face distinct obstacles when they want to contribute to their region's economic development. What are the specific obstacles, or challenges, Aboriginals have to overcome in order to participate in the northern economy?
Ms. King: That's a great question. Many challenges exist, both for Aboriginals and entrepreneurs throughout Northern Canada. It's a matter of community capacity. Normally, communities are quite small, not to mention the fact that most northern Aboriginal communities are very remote. So that gives rise to all kinds of challenges. When an entrepreneur lives in a tiny community in Nunavut's far north, for example, it poses a major challenge, both for Aboriginals and others. Another issue that comes into play is access to investment by small businesses that aren't close to a major financial centre. Language also enters into the equation. Some Aboriginals wish to work in Inuktitut or another language. So, as you can imagine, northern economic development comes with all kinds of challenges.
Senator Chaput: How do you address those challenges? Aboriginal peoples did not ask to have those challenges put in their way. They are simply the reality of life. How do you make sure that they can participate fully in economic development?
Ms. King: As I mentioned, our program supports Aboriginal business in a number of ways, be it through capacity building, training or investments, depending on what the needs are. We provide a range of targeted services to support Aboriginal communities all over Canada's North. We also deliver the Northern Adult Basic Education Program, which is designed to improve the literacy of Aboriginals in the North.
Senator Chaput: The education program for Aboriginals is already in place, is it not? Did the Aboriginal community contribute to the program's implementation to ensure that it met their specific needs? A basic education program designed for a general audience would not necessarily work.
Ms. King: Northern colleges deliver the program. I can give you examples, but the program is well connected to all the communities in Canada's North and the Aboriginal populations who live there. We're beginning to see the positive impact the program is having, and it's quite impressive.
Senator Chaput: That's an excellent answer. I have one last question. How many Aboriginal people have benefited from the Northern Aboriginal Economic Opportunities Program so far? How many Aboriginals have already benefited from the program? Five? Ten? Twenty?
Ms. King: Do you mean Aboriginals? We can provide the committee with a list of funding recipients, who represent communities, not individuals.
Senator Chaput: No. Businesses or entrepreneurs?
Ms. King: Yes. Entrepreneurs, communities. . . Who else?
Mr. Bloom: That program is aimed at communities who demonstrate a certain level of capacity. For us, then, the first step is to offer them assistance to initiate the process and to acquire key tools to start businesses. Approximately 10 per cent of our budget goes towards establishing businesses. Most of our funding is allocated to communities and organizations.
Senator Chaput: I want to make sure I've understood correctly. You are saying that the funding under the Northern Aboriginal Economic Opportunities Program goes to communities, be it to provide training or support for small business. I am just trying to make sure that the money is used to help them establish businesses. Is that the case?
Mr. Bloom: Aboriginals make up about half the population in Canada's North, particularly for an agency such as CanNor. Aboriginals are our biggest clients. Our role in the economy involves Aboriginals and the backbone of the economy. Certain socio-economic challenges come into play, and that is the reason why we started by creating the literacy program. That's a bit of a departure for an economic development agency, wouldn't you say?
Senator Chaput: Let's take, for example, a young Aboriginal woman in the North who is interested in starting her own business; she is creative and artistic and wants to start a business making leather boots in various designs and patterns. She has the desire and the creativity, but she may need some education. Can someone like her come to your agency for help?
Ms. King: Yes. We also offer other program funding through service partners out in in the communities. It's an extension of our program in the community and it provides direct support to Aboriginals.
Senator Chaput: And you put them in contact with the applicants?
Ms. King: We invest in those services and they act as the liaison.
Senator Rivard: I had questions about First Nations in both of your regions, but Senator Chaput already asked them, and I'm satisfied with those answers.
A few weeks ago, the committee heard from representatives of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Both Senator Chaput and I are on the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am a part-time member, and she is on the committee full time. We're very interested in French-speaking minority communities in other provinces, and we got some good news about Quebec's English-speaking minority, because anglophones are the minority in Quebec. Not only did the economic development agency submit an application in one official language, but it also funded a project to promote the use of English in Quebec, in addition to projects submitted by francophones in other provinces.
Can you name some projects you funded that were aimed at promoting the French language, up north or in Ontario? In Ontario, the Windsor area is home to several tens of thousands of French speakers; admittedly, there aren't nearly as many in the northern territories. Regardless, can you think of any projects designed to promote the French language that received support or funding from you?
Ms. King: Yes, we have French-speaking clients in all three territories. Our investments have been primarily directed at French-speaking entrepreneurs.
Senator Rivard: To promote education?
Ms. King: Yes. To build their capacity to work and succeed in the language of their choice. Further to our economic development mandate, we have invested in such programs.
For instance, in 2014-15, we invested over $100,000 in Conseil de développement économique des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, a well-known and very active economic development organization. The money was used to develop and implement a French-language advertising campaign to educate people about the opportunities in the mining and energy sector and promote entrepreneurship within the community.
We try to support French-speaking communities within the parameters of our mandate, and that's one example of how we do that.
Senator Rivard: What about in Ontario?
Mr. Beaudoin: As an example, we provided $500,000 to support the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, known as AFO. Essentially, the money enabled the organization to give young people in southern Ontario work opportunities and experience. Not only did these work placements provide young people with work experience, but they also helped to attract them to the regions and ultimately encourage them to stay.
Senator Rivard: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to the representatives from Ontario.
I was going to ask you whether your region included Windsor, and the answer is yes, as you mentioned earlier. I gather that your area of responsibility includes Windsor, St. Thomas and Cambridge but that you do not provide funding or support to the auto industry.
This morning, I was reading an article in Les Affaires reminding readers that, in 2009, the federal government, together with the Government of Ontario, provided $10.8 billion in capital to keep GM from going under. Further to the bailout agreement, GM promised Canada that 16 per cent of its North American production would take place in Canada.
Keep in mind that, a few years ago, GM had 20,000 employees and now has just 9,000. What's more, GM has already announced that, in 2016, it will stop making three of its popular models — Camaro, Impala and Equinox — in Canada.
Even though it doesn't fall under your jurisdiction, are you concerned by GM's ability to keep its 16 per cent production promise? Ontario has sold its stake and recovered its capital. But as for the federal government's stake, I know it has sold a small chunk but still has a significant portion. So even though you are not responsible for the auto industry, you still serve and promote that region. Does it worry you to see that GM has a tendency to shift its focus back to the U.S. and, above all, not to honour its commitment?
Mr. Beaudoin: Thank you for your question. I won't address the issue of whether or not we are concerned. But what I will mention is that companies such as GM Ingersoll, Ford, Fiat and Chrysler have, in recent weeks, made announcements of investments that will benefit southern Ontario.
The auto industry is hugely important to southern Ontario's supply chains. We work with the different sectors of the economy. In some cases, under some of our programs, small and medium-sized businesses come to us and receive funding from the agency. It's a sector we keep an eye on.
As for your more general questions, I would direct those to our Industry Canada counterparts.
[English]
Senator Wallace: When I listened to your presentations, I noticed that both agencies have very broad mandates in terms of economic development. My question follows up somewhat on Senator Bellemare's comments about focus, priorities, measuring success and the like.
At the beginning of each year when you're deciding how you're going to spend your budget, do you identify particular industries or businesses in your areas and determine that a certain percentage of your budget will be allocated to those areas because you believe they provide the best opportunities for economic growth? Do you do that, or do you just take it as it comes and whoever comes in the door you will consider providing them with funding? How targeted is the budgeting you do to specific industries each year?
Ms. Anzolin: First, each of our programs has guidelines and terms and conditions. When we receive applications, obviously we do our due diligence to examine the application with respect to how well it fits our objectives in terms of the program.
Generally speaking, our objective is to achieve the best value for Canadians within southern Ontario. When we look at our projects, we try to determine what makes the most sense. While there are specific requirements in terms of receiving funding under our programs, generally speaking we try to let business lead. We look at the demands coming in from business rather than the agency determining where we're going to select projects.
We do take the geography into account. We try to make sure that we're funding across all of southern Ontario. We look at specific sectors that we think have the greatest value not only to southern Ontario but also to the entire economy of Canada.
Senator Wallace: Would you tend to allocate more of the funding to those areas that you believe provide the greatest opportunity at the time?
Ms. Anzolin: Each program has a defined budget, but in some cases, we're able to notionally allocate some funding across initiatives. Under the Southern Ontario Prosperity Initiatives, we have four initiatives. We are able to determine where we can best serve Canadians by investing our funds in the areas that we think will make the most sense.
Senator Wallace: Do you identify those areas or those particular businesses at the beginning of the year for the focus of your funding?
Ms. Anzolin: Yes. We have notional allocations each year, which are published through the Report on Plans and Priorities. In consultation with our stakeholders and our partners, and based on the demands that we receive, we then determine whether we need to make any changes in terms of our initial allocations.
Senator Wallace: Ms. King?
Ms. King: Thank you for the question. Part of our answer will be very similar to my colleague's at FedDev. Each of our contribution programs are distributed according to the criteria for the terms and conditions.
I think that a simple answer for several of our programs is that we do not identify specific projects at the beginning. We have priorities. We have areas, as I mentioned before. We have themes we're exploring. We're informed. We listen very carefully to our partners in the North and, as you said, I think we let business lead.
That being said, for two of our programs, we actually have a predetermined distribution across the territories. For the Northern Adult Basic Education Program, for example, the funding allocation for each territory was determined by each territory's share of working-age northerners lacking a grade 12 education. It's very targeted to address a specific gap. That's one example.
Another example is our new Community Readiness and Opportunities Planning fund under our Aboriginal program, and it's distributed on a population-based formula, calculated on a census number, which was focused on the total Aboriginal population. Again, we tried to make sure it was targeted, based on data, to the audience we were aiming for.
Senator Wallace: This, again, is a question that was touched on by Senator Bellemare. We all want to ensure that the public money is well spent and benefits are maximized, so how do you determine that at the end of the year? You don't have to get down to the specifics of what your measurement programs are, but are there specific tests you have that will determine if you were successful in achieving benchmark objectives? Do you establish those? Do you have a way of measuring if you were successful and can say at the end of the day that taxpayers' money was well spent? "We hit our target; we exceeded our target?" Do both agencies do that?
Ms. Anzolin: Each department and agency publishes its report on plans and priorities. Underneath the foundation of the report on plans and priorities, there is a framework, a performance-measurement framework. It identifies clearly the targets that we want to achieve for each of our programs and how we're going to achieve them.
As we deliver our programs and services, we then report back to Canadians through the departmental performance report. It indicates whether or not we've achieved our targets, and why we didn't or why we did well.
Those are two mechanisms in terms of what's available to all of us. In addition to that, as Alain indicated, we also do evaluations of our programs. Then I would say the third thing, which is critically important, is that we look at feedback from our clients and our stakeholders, and that helps us to determine whether or not we're meeting our targets and whether we're adding value to Canadians.
Ms. King: I would echo a great deal of what my colleague has said. I would add a couple of comments, from our perspective, one of which will be familiar to them. As to hard targets at the end, we actually work with them all year long. Quarterly, monthly, we are reviewing, "Are we hitting what we want to be accomplishing," and then we work through the annual process that my colleague has described. We do check always. We don't have hard targets by month or by quarter, but we're checking all the time to make sure that our funds are being directed, as I've described, to the objectives that we had pursued.
In addition, in the North, to try to inform ourselves for the type of question you're asking, CanNor has elaborated an index system, the Northern Economic Index and a couple others, so that we have a Northern-focused economic index against which we can test ourselves every year.
Senator Wallace: Thank you very much.
Senator Lang: If I could make a couple of comments at the outset, I do live in the North, so I have a pretty good understanding of at least my part of the world, the Yukon. I just want to make a reference with respect to some of the questions within the Aboriginal community in the North and what's being provided for them.
I think it's important to point out that there is a very cosmopolitan population in the North when it comes to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon specifically. The population of the Yukon is approximately 80 per cent non-First Nation, 20 per cent First Nation. The Northwest Territories is about 48 to 50 per cent First Nation versus non-First Nation. So you can see that there is a real mix of the population and the demographics.
In Nunavut, it's almost, I don't know, 80 or 90 per cent with respect to Inuit. Basically, it's their province or their territory. I just want to make that clear, because we get into a situation where we single out one part of the population versus another. I want to stress very clearly that we live together. We marry together; our kids go to school together. I think it's really important that that be pointed out, although recognizing that, in some cases, within the First Nation community, they need a helping hand.
The other point I want to make about the North — and perhaps Ms. King can comment on this — is that we have land claims almost settled throughout the North, which is a very significant change that is going through with respect to the economic and social aspects of the North as we move ahead. Considerable taxpayer dollars have been paid into those land claims. Significant lands have been set aside. Significant economic opportunities have been provided. Yet, at the same time — and I guess this leads me to our witnesses — with respect to the Yukon specifically, I'm quite concerned about where our economy is today. We had three operating mines up to three years ago. We now have two mines closed, one curtailed in production and possibly closing. Things are not that promising.
The concern I have is, with respect to the amount of money that's made available to agencies such as this — and I go back to Senator Wallace and Senator Bellemare — are we targeting this money with respect to being able to meet the obstacles that we face economically to develop these resource industries? Could you just give us the breakdown of the dollars that are going to the Northwest Territories, to the Yukon and to Nunavut?
Also, could you give us a brief outline of what the biggest obstacles are to economic development and prosperity in the three territories and, more so for me, specifically the Yukon.
Ms. King: I don't have the numbers for the breakdown between the three territories, but we could certainly provide that to the committee — this year isn't completed yet — either at the completion of this year or, if you're interested, for the previous year.
Senator Lang: Last year.
Ms. King: We could offer that, certainly.
The Chair: And the year-to-date would be helpful.
Ms. King: Year-to-date? We could do that. Thank you. We'll provide that to the committee.
Mr. Bloom here has worked in great depth over the last couple of years with some of the challenges you've talked about, so I'd like to offer him the opportunity to answer the question.
Mr. Bloom: If I can, I'll use Yukon examples, which I think you'll find helpful. Resource development anywhere in this country is a global market. It's not just Canada; it's not just the territories. We deal with companies that are based all around the world. We deal with selling the commodities and shipping them all around the world, including the gold mines that you've been referring to in the Yukon. So it's not easy, although the Yukon is a wonderful example. Compared to the rest of the North, it has certain advantages like infrastructure. Some of those mines that the senator referred to are close to roads and that allows things to happen faster and on a much smaller scale than in the rest of the North. You have to see that each territory is quite unique.
Another good Yukon example is labour market. You have to have the proper labour market support. Ms. King spoke about NABEP, but we just had significant investment — I think it's something you picked up in these estimates — in the Centre for Northern Innovation in Mining at Yukon College. Working with the college, working with industry, working with the territorial government, everybody coming together and saying, "Look, even if we have these mines, if the people of the Yukon don't benefit it's really not worth it." So we put a lot of money in, as the federal government, matched by others. Great partnerships like that make a big difference, and I think Yukon is one of our best examples of some good successes.
Senator Lang: I'm not all doom and gloom here; I want to assure you of this. I appreciate all of the work that CanNor has done over the years, but I wanted to follow up on Senator Wallace's point. The question I put is: What are the greatest obstacles that we face, in a general sense, with respect to development in the territory? I think it's pretty clear. It's a question of transportation, it's a question of energy and, in some cases, it's a question of communications.
It would seem to me that there should be a segment of whatever dollars are available directed specifically into that particular area of the economy so at the end of the year or at the end of three years we can measure where we've been. That's following on Senator Wallace's questions.
If we don't do that and it's just a case of whoever gets through the door first, at the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if we really accomplished what we wanted to do. I'm not saying you're doing that, but the question I have for you is this: What have you in plans for tackling those three issues of transportation, communication and energy in all three territories? It applies to all of them, not just the Yukon.
Mr. Bloom: You've touched on an issue that's vital certainly to us. We've spent an inordinate amount of time, and maybe not enough yet, on infrastructure questions. Working with Infrastructure Canada, we know the government introduced the new Building Canada Fund, the P3 fund, and the North is certainly working hard to get access to some of those additional funds like the national infrastructure component of the Building Canada Fund.
We work with industry. We work with the territorial government. In the opening remarks of Ms. King, she pointed out the capital investments across the North that are associated with resource development projects. It's obvious that even as a government we would never be able to come up with $22 billion to build roads, bridges, ports and airports. The money in that figure is largely for those pieces of infrastructure.
What we've been trying to do is find ways to get to the private sector infrastructure needs and the public needs kind of matched up together. One of the obvious examples is when you put an all-season road into a mine in any part of the North and at the end of the process they pull the road out. That is required under the environmental assessment process.
We believe working with partners there are opportunities to look at different ways of doing things in the North because it is a different place. But I have to concur, the infrastructure, including energy, is a real challenge. LNG has now created different possibilities even in Yukon moving from a diesel-based economy. It's not like the rest of Canada where even the cost of electricity — believe me; we wish we had the Ontario problem — is quite challenging.
Ms. King: Mitch has been speaking to our advocacy role in which we spend a great deal of internal resources. It's not grants and contributions. It's our advocacy role. His group, in particular, does a great deal of work on that, trying to address those issues, again, with our partners in the North.
In our ongoing economic development activities, we are small but those are large investments. We have a limited budget so, again, going back to targeting, we target them very explicitly where we can be most effective in assisting with direct grants and contributions to these kinds of problems, so we play the two roles.
Senator Lang: I want to pursue that further. I appreciate this is not a lot of money in the context of government spending. Maybe in the Yukon it's $8 million a year. I think those are the numbers. But when you lever it three to one, if you get the various governments and private sectors, maybe it's $30 million if you're going in that direction.
I appreciate your advocacy role. Perhaps that's one of the benchmarks we should be looking at two or three years down the road, like being able to access those other federal programs for the purposes of putting in that public infrastructure that's required to, for example, put in a significant mining resource. It's one thing to say it's all the mining properties' responsibilities. On the other hand, there is a public responsibility. I know there is a fine line there in respect to what our responsibilities are, but that can be the difference between that mine going ahead and not going ahead.
We have two mining properties in the Yukon right now — although the commodity prices go up and down — that are world class. We're talking the size of one copper mine second or third in the world and a lead-zinc mine second or third in the world in volume. It's massive; it's huge. However, there are problems with the energy.
The other aspect I want to go back to is the question of these opportunities for this new program you're putting in, the Community Readiness Initiatives. What we've experienced in the Yukon, not unlike other parts of Canada, is this "not in my backyard." I want to gas up my SUV, but I certainly don't want to have any gas wells in my backyard. It makes a lot of sense. The problem is that it has created a negative culture and its vocal opposition to anything that government or the private sector wants to do.
Will this Community Readiness initiative address that problem? In three years from now, will we be able to say we've accomplished something and remedied something we've been experiencing?
Ms. King: If I may, I will answer the first part of your question and then hand it off to Mr. Bloom, who is responsible for the Community Readiness piece.
We haven't spoken very much about our Northern Projects Management Office, which is unique to regional development agencies. We have a particular mandate to work closely with major projects, most of which are mining companies, including the couple you mentioned in the Yukon. We have the privilege of working very closely with those proponents and with the communities and with the governments supporting them in, as Mitch was saying earlier, identifying their barriers and challenges — whether it be within regulatory systems or within any kind of barrier going forward — and working with pathfinding to help them solve them. We work with 30 companies in great depth. So, we do have an instrument where we work on a monthly basis or in more detail with them.
Building on your comment earlier, the co-management governance in the North, Yukon, N.W.T. and Nunavut, are remarkable instruments to be able to address some of these challenges early on. Each one of them is not just environmental assessment. It's tremendously helpful that there are environmental, social and economic reviews involving all impacted stakeholders with the territory and the Aboriginal governments on the decision-making body engaged early in the decision. That's tremendously helpful, as well, to move forward through some of this complicated and challenging decision making.
Mr. Bloom: To build on what Ms. King said, we are unique. This Northern Projects Management Office oversees resource development on the federal government's behalf in all three territories. It's an amazing tool when the major economic driver is resource development in this particular area, so that's great.
We also operate the Aboriginal Economic Development programming in our agency. Again, that's operated by Aboriginal Affairs in southern Canada, not the regional development agency, so you can see we're structured a bit differently, which allows us to get to pieces like the Community Readiness Initiative.
For us it really is, as I made allusions to earlier on, making sure communities benefit. If northerners don't benefit, I'm not really sure why they would want to support it. We spend a lot of time on the ground dealing with communities so they better understand fracking, as occurred in the Northwest Territories. It's quite interesting to say that fracking was not referred for environmental assessment by a major multinational company because the community had a better understanding how early it was in the exploration cycle.
We're dealing with uranium in Nunavut. My staff was just out in the field last week in these communities where they've never had a uranium mine and the Nuclear Safety Commission was there with us talking to the communities. They'll make their decisions and we just want to make sure people are informed.
We've done that all over the North. Getting folks ready for us means also making sure they're well informed, even about some of the tough things that are going on.
The Chair: Shall I put you down for round 2?
Senator Lang: If we have time, yes, sure.
The Chair: I think we can do that. It's very helpful to have someone who lives in the North and can tell us just what's happening on the ground from his perspective. He was very active in politics at the local level prior to becoming a senator. I know Senator Lang could also tell you about a Senate committee that travelled across the North.
Mr. Bloom was referring to diesel dependency and we're looking into diesel dependency and the expansion of the electric grid in northern Alberta and northern British Columbia. We also looked at the impact that liquefied natural gas would have if it could be shipped up there reasonably. There are a lot of interesting developments that various committees in the Senate are looking into and you're complementing a lot of other activities that are going on.
Senator Mockler: I have a couple of questions to follow the previous question. Senator Lang said 80 per cent non-First Nation and 20 per cent Aboriginal in reference to Yukon. What percentage of your organization would be Aboriginal to help economic development?
Ms. King: I don't have the numbers with me. I believe it's in the order of 15 per cent. We have different percentages across the North, as Senator Lang indicated. There is a significantly different percentage of Aboriginal populations in Nunavut, for example. As a government employee, we operate under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, as well, in which case there is an overall obligation to strive for 85 per cent representation. We have the Inuit Employment Plan, which we are implementing, that has a whole suite of measures to build readiness and ability to recruit and retain Inuit beneficiaries in our office in Nunavut.
Senator Mockler: You will provide the committee with that percentage.
Ms. King: Certainly.
Senator Mockler: What percentage of your economic development budget goes to Aboriginals, with all the sectors that you invest in?
Ms. King: As I mentioned, one of our programs is fully targeted at Aboriginal entrepreneurs; so that entire program would be targeted towards the Aboriginal population. With SINED I'm not sure if we break out the numbers that way, by Aboriginal recipient. I don't think we identify them formally.
Mr. Bloom: In addition to the $11 million, which represents one third of our annual "free contribution money" we can put out each year, the SINED program, which is larger, looks at all different parts of the economy. Our geoscience fund is our most significant investment supporting that work, as the geoscience work takes place not in the territorial capitals but throughout the territory. Most of those major projects take place on First Nations' lands or Inuit lands. There are immense opportunities. Sometimes it's a step removed, but the investments are still heavily in that direction.
Our fisheries in Nunavut is entirely Inuit-based and there's a lot of investment; but it started with science investments to understand what was in the water and what could be caught. Because of the nature of our clients and the population, it is disproportionately focused, and always will be, on the Aboriginal population.
Senator Mockler: Ms. King, can you provide us with the information through the clerk of the committee? I would like to be apprised of the percentage of your programs that goes to Aboriginal entrepreneurs.
Ms. King: We'll break it down as completely as we can with the data we have.
Senator Mockler: If you don't have that type of information, I would advise you to look into it so that when you come to government we can have an appreciation of the roles of FTEs within your organization, plus the fact of what percentage goes to Aboriginal people.
To southern Ontario: I notice that you have an important budget. Where I come from in Atlantic Canada, ACOA is very similar to what the North has. I am looking at investing in business innovation, growth and productivity, commercialization, partnership and regional diversification. What is the breakdown for those four sectors in agriculture, forestry and their value-added?
Ms. Anzolin: None of the four initiatives have any of those sectors targeted. We can look at the investments we've made and then, when we fund a project, we match it with the North American Industry Classification System, NAICS. That then allows us to identify how much funding is going to specific sectors.
We can tell you how much has gone into agricultural or forestry. However, I will say that there is a Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, so our investments are in areas where others aren't investing. We try to complement other federal programming or our partners' programming.
In short, I'm trying to say that we don't identify immediately at the front end how much will go to specific sectors. As I indicated, we try to let businesses lead. However, we can provide you with a retrospective of how much has gone into certain sectors if you identify the sectors you're interested in.
Senator Mockler: It would be the regions that you cover.
In 2004, 2005 and 2006, we had approximately five economic agreements in the world. Today we have over 70 agreements with various countries. Agriculture should be a priority basically because Ontario is part of the base of agriculture and forestry, especially if we encourage value-added in those sectors. In the meantime, keep in mind that we will need, in approximately 20 years, to feed a little over 9 billion people.
Ms. Anzolin: Southern Ontario has a rich agricultural sector, so we work closely with our federal partner, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. As I indicated earlier, food processing is also an important part and that's the value-added. It's kind of the innovation continuum where FedDev Ontario can play a more important role.
Our partners through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as our provincial partners, do a good job in terms of primary research and investments in agriculture. Our space is really more towards that latter part of the innovation continuum — the value-added and in food processing; so we have invested heavily in this area. In our first five years, we had a food and beverage initiative because we felt it was an important part. We continue to work with a number of stakeholders in the food processing industry because, as you indicated, exporting is a critically important component in terms of prosperity for southern Ontario. That's really where we want to move our programs and work with our partners to encourage our stakeholders to look at how they can strengthen their global presence. The food processing sector is one of those sectors.
Senator Eaton: To follow that up, when we talk about food processing, do you have interaction with Guelph University, because they're doing some really interesting things in terms of food processing?
Ms. Anzolin: Yes, we're working with a number of universities and colleges. We invested in the Conestoga College to encourage a number of stakeholders to use that college as a way to enhance their efforts. We're also working with Guelph. We've had discussions with a number of universities and colleges.
Senator Eaton: There is a whole ring around Guelph, which is extraordinary.
Ms. Anzolin: Exactly, there's almost a cluster we're starting to see develop, and so we want to work closely with those. We're working with the province and a number of organizations.
Senator Eaton: Again, the Agriculture Committee went down to look at some of the various innovations they're doing in food-processing development. If you have any specific things on which you're dealing with Guelph University, could you send me any projects you're doing or have looked at with them?
The Chair: Why don't we ask our witnesses to send them to the clerk and then we can distribute it to everyone.
Senator Eaton: That's what I meant.
Ms. Anzolin: If you don't mind, we'll provide you with our investments that we've made in food processing with a specific focus on Guelph.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I'm going to forget about my question because Senator Lang asked it earlier. I had wanted to tie our discussion back to some comments we heard yesterday from the Northwest Territories mining association at the Environment Committee. The association presented its economic development vision and spoke to the infrastructure and energy problems related to mining development. I was curious about your interactions with that association and your involvement with those issues, but the question has already been amply discussed.
[English]
The Chair: No further comment necessary on that, unless you wish. It was just a comment.
Senator Lang: Mr. Bloom raised the question of the geoscience and geological science program that's in the North, in particular in the Yukon. It's an amazing government program that has brought forward a lot of the reasons why we're in the position we're in today of being able to identify those mining prospects that the mining community follow up on after they have been identified. It has certainly laid the foundation for the future of the territories, and the governments should be commended for that.
I have a number of questions and a concern. I want to talk about the complement of the staff within CanNor. You say you have roughly 78 — and I understand you're looking at increasing the numbers — and 70 per cent of them live in the North and 30 per cent I gather must be in Ottawa, so the difference is roughly 20 or 25 positions in Ottawa versus outside. Will that change? I don't understand what you do in Ottawa here.
Ms. King: Yes, we are on a path to change it. We're increasingly building the headquarters in Iqaluit and, as we re-staff the positions and identify trained personnel, we'll be building some of those services in Iqaluit. We're on the path to doing that and are committed to doing so.
In Ottawa, we have the core of our policy and liaison work. We have the centre of our corporate services, a large part of which we will be moving to Iqaluit as we build that and find the skills that can be hired in Iqaluit to deliver that service.
Senator Lang: We'll see the numbers in Ottawa significantly lower than what they are now.
Ms. King: Yes, that's our objective. For example, right now for senior financial analysis, we have a competition to hire who would essentially be the two I see on the financial side to Mr. Robineau. If we can find them, they'll be in Iqaluit. As you know, staffing is difficult in Iqaluit for a variety of reasons, and we're progressively building that capacity, looking for the internal sustainability that I know we'll achieve, but it might take another few years.
Senator Lang: I understand there are problems, but I thought it should be raised and get it on the public record.
I want to go back to the question of the mandate of your organization going forward. I appreciate what you've done in the past. I want to go back to Senator Bellemare and Senator Wallace's questions, and I think Senator Mockler touched on it. It's the question of the various broad areas of the economy that we're trying to strengthen and put the priorities on.
The next time you report back to Parliament, would you be open to taking the time and opportunity to identify within those 90 applications how many were in the area of energy, how many were in the area of transportation, and how many in the area of communication? Then we'll get a sense of a breakdown in respect to what the priorities are. Then, at that stage, we around this table could follow up and ask how many in mining, for example, and what exactly you did.
This is generic, what's being provided here, and I understand why you put it in this form. But from the point of view of having a discussion, for us as senators and for you as a department, it's to be able to talk in a broad sense of how we are moving and how the economy is benefiting from what we're doing. The last thing we need is to do studies just for the sake of studies.
I don't know if you have a comment in respect to being able to report back to us like that.
Ms. King: Going forward, I'm sure we could organize the information in that fashion. I could speak at length on fisheries or tourism in Nunavut, but I don't have it systematically. We could certainly work towards that.
The Chair: If we keep making demands on you, you'll have to expand your Ottawa office.
Ms. King: I understood this to be for the next time we're back.
Senator Lang: Yes. Mr. Chair, I'm looking forward a year or two years, and then give us a broad perspective.
The Chair: I think Senator Mockler made a similar type of request. These are just suggestions we make, and you might see some of those suggestions reflected in our report, which we will be providing a copy of to you in due course.
Senator Lang: I want to say I appreciate the work they do and I know we benefit from CanNor. It's not to say we can't change, that's why it was interesting when you talked about a strategic plan going forward and looking ahead of how to move this. We're not talking about a lot of dollars in the context of money. We really have to be judicious if we're going to benefit from it.
The Chair: I wanted you to understand why there were quite a few questions asked about how you assess your investment, your activities. We had, I think it was Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development here a few weeks ago, and perhaps CMHC, and they discussed investing in native communities for housing. We asked more specific questions about that.
Presumably in their plans and priorities they would say, "Invest in Native housing," and then they would say, in departmental performance that comes 18 months later, "We invested in Native housing." We got into the weeds a little bit and we asked them specific questions. They told us they were not able to follow up and go into the community to see if CMHC rules and building codes were followed, or whether the houses were appropriate for the area. They weren't able to do any of that, so they had no idea. They just knew that they had invested in housing.
We were surprised by that answer, and that's part of what's triggering a lot of these questions. Have either of you found any situations where you're being asked to invest — and I was looking at community planning. Perhaps this is Mr. Bloom in the community planning and capacity building. Are you right into that, or do you just make a grant or contribution of funds and then let the community do it?
Mr. Bloom: It's one of those examples that were well before the actual development is there. You would have to come back and measure it after the community plan is in place and see if we created additional jobs in the community, if we were able to convince the companies to have smaller subcontracts so local businesses could compete for them. Those are all the elements we work into it, but it's a multi-year effort to get there.
There are examples. I think of one of our performance measures that would be interesting is our infrastructure investment. We provide funding to help studies get done to examine possible infrastructure investments. We put a measure in place to know how often that resulted in the infrastructure. It's nice to do a study, but did you actually get the bridge or road or whatever else it was? We ended up finding out that we're batting about 50 per cent, so about half the time it ended up resulting in infrastructure, which is pretty good. It is large-scale infrastructure that gets put in place.
We try to tie our investment to the actual result sometimes, but, because it takes so much longer to see how this economy evolves, it takes a bit of time.
The Chair: On my housing example, does anybody else want to make a comment? Do you experience anything like that?
Ms. Anzolin: If I may, I can't speak about the housing situation, but within FedDev Ontario we don't provide grants; we provide contribution agreements, repayable or non-repayable. As part of those conditions, the recipient needs to report back to us on a regular basis. They're reporting back and the frequency is dependent on whether they're a high-risk recipient, or if there is low risk. If they're a high risk, we require them to report back more frequently.
In addition, not only do we look to the recipient giving us reports in terms of what they've done to ensure that their activities match with the contribution that we provided them, we also do monitoring. We have program officers who will go on site to make sure that the project that we funded actually exists.
Again, we use a risk-based framework to determine when we go to monitor, because we're approving so many projects, so you can't always go on site on every project. Those are the types of measures we have in place to make sure our investments are actually being delivered by our clients and our recipients.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. King: From a CanNor perspective, we have performance measures across our full suite of programs. We're challenging ourselves more and more to use them well and intelligently, so we can ask ourselves the types of questions that we're receiving here tonight and then pursue them.
The Chair: Are most of your investments grants, as well, where you can define the reporting requirements of the recipient?
Ms. King: We have contribution agreements with all of our recipients that define both the expectations and the reporting requirements. I do need to note that we are sensitive to reporting burdens as well; so we have to find that balance between the information that is useful and necessary for us to ensure good value for money and results, and ensuring it's doable and not too great of a burden for the proponent receiving the funding. We try to keep a good balance there.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we've been hearing from the Federal Economic Development Agency of Southern Ontario and the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would like to thank you for being here, being so succinct in your answers and clarifying the good work that you do.
(The committee adjourned.)