Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were a few areas that I wanted to make some comment on and then ask the Minister some questions for clarification. One of the areas that the Auditor General pointed out that he was concerned about was in multiple dipping. The Minister just now talked about a committee that is reviewing the activities of the Development Corporation, the Business Credit Corporation and the other agencies within the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development that hand out money.
I am hoping that what we will see is some rationalization of the program so that we do not see situations where one body is providing equity funding which is then used to get loan funding for another part of the proposed operation.
I think that we need to be clear about how much of an investment this government is going to make in each proposed new program or new company or new operation. It gets to be very unclear when there can be different pots of money that can be accessed for the same company or the same start-up. I am hoping that one of the ideals behind this proposed rationalization is the issue of multiple dipping.
The other area I wanted to talk about is one that Mr. Bell just got into and maybe ask the Minister in the transcripts from the committee to have a look at page 7 from the Wednesday, September 28th session. If he has a copy of our report, you will find that the transcripts are in there.
In the response, the chair of the board which administers the operations of the Development Corporation says that she believes that their mandate really means that they are taking social service directed money and using it to distribute in a business plan. I think that is cause for concern, for me at least, because I wonder if this is income support money. If this really is income support money, should the administration not involve Education, Culture and Employment so that we are sure we are getting the training aspect that is required to come to bear on this expenditure as well?
In terms of openness and transparency, public reporting, the Minister has said that he has some concerns about monies that are basically coming from a government run bank being disclosed. Part of the problem we have is that among the public right now, there is a lack of confidence. I have had a number of people come up to me and say I understand this company got money from this pot and this pot and this pot and there is no way now to confirm or deny that because there is no public reporting.
These are public funds. I think people have a right to expect that if this government does provide a grant to a company, then that grant will be reported on publicly. If this government provides a loan to people, it will be reported on publicly. I think one thing to remember is that the Aurora funds, both Aurora funds, the recipient of loan monies from those funds have been made public. Again, this was a program of loans, not grants, which were administered by this government. So the amounts and the names of the loans and the names of the companies receiving the loans have been made public by this government over the past couple of years.
I would say that we should not segregate our programs. If we have one program where we are comfortable insisting that people who take advantage of the funding know that their name and the amount that they borrow, that they have to pay back will be made public, then I think we should expect that will be required in all situations.
The bottom line is these are public monies and yes, there is a different standard for getting public money into the economy. One of those standards is there has to be public accountability and transparency. People have to be able to be comfortable that government will stand behind the grant or the loan and say this was given for the right reasons, the assessments were done properly and we are prepared to say that this was the right way to go. If you do not come out and tell people where the monies have gone though, there will always be some people who say that there was some preference that was given in the awards. So I think it is absolutely essential that we move, as most jurisdictions in Canada have, to public reporting of funds that are given out in business development.
The Minister also just recently talked about a revised Business Incentive Policy. So one other area that I would ask him to address is, he has talked a number of times now about wanting to revise the Business Incentive Policy, but I have not heard what the philosophical reason for that is. The Business Incentive Policy was developed solely to provide an incentive for business to develop. It was felt by the government of the day that if northern ownership was enhanced that monies would be kept in the North, and that was a sufficient reason to come up with this policy. It had nothing to do, it has never had anything to do with labour. It has to do with the fostering of the ownership of businesses by northern people. Is the philosophy then going to change from that?
If we are going to now change it from what the Minister said, I understand it is now headed towards a plan that would foster employment rather than perhaps northern ownership. Mr. Chairman, just some general comments and some questions in those four areas that I would hope that the Minister would address. Those were:
- • Multiple dipping;
- • Whether or not the Development Corp is in fact a social agency and should be moved within the social envelope;
- • The issue of openness and transparency, in particular since in one area of lending, we do now and have for a number of years publicly reported on loan recipients; and
- • What is the revised philosophy underpinning the proposed Business Incentive Policy that the Minister plans to bring forward?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.