Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[Ferne Downey]

Exactly.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

--which it wasn't before.

When we look at where we spend our money in the culture and the arts side of things, there is always a debate on who should get it. You may only have one dollar. If you were to ask your members where we should spend that dollar and break it down, would they like to see more go toward the development of the artist, or would they like to see more in the development of production, or do they want to see more spent in the meeting it's presented on?

If you were to split it apart, where do you think the priority should go?

[Ferne Downey]

I would say production, in that it is a very collaborative form. It's probably the most collaborative form that exists, and we share a border with the gigantic entertainment industry to the south.

Production is where the actual work opportunity and the job creation is. It's where we meet. It's where we do our important work together. Every time you incent a production, you incent everybody to be a part of it: the actors, the directors, the whole technical team, everybody. It benefits the most and keeps content creation fresh. Justin Bieber is huge around the world as an important Canadian artist and an ACTRA member, I'm proud to say.

You have to keep everything moving forward, because we had to fight so hard for our shelf space.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So when you talk about shelf space, that's one thing that I think has changed over the last 20 years. There's more opportunity once a good production is produced to get it out there. It's not as if it's just one or two channels, as it was when I grew up. That's all we had. Now you have the aboriginal channel, the A-Channel. You get Showcase. You have a variety of different venues to get it out.

Do you think more priority should be placed toward the production—that's what you're telling me—over the medium in which it is presented?

[Ferne Downey]

All the distribution platforms are fantastic, whether I watch a show on my phone or the iPad or my television or my computer. You still have to have the content created to be seen on all those multiple platforms. I think we're lacking a cogent digital economy strategy in relation to content creation. It's one of the things I'm trying to get more oxygen around and talk about openly—how do we do better? How do we incent even more work? How do we find real work in this new form of transmedia?

First it was new media, then it was digital media, now it's transmedia. It's everywhere.

My end of it is the content. This is my bias, I confess.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. Again, we're back to limited dollars. We only have so much we can spend.

When you start dividing those dollars, do we need to re-look at how we spend those dollars? Do we need to re-look at whether we put so much money into CBC versus subsidizing the programs played on any channel? Do we need to re-look at whether the support would have to be applied? Is that something that needs to be considered?

[Ferne Downey]

I think we don't want to rely only on government funding; we're trying to be more creative about how we incent private investment in content creation. That's why there's this new idea about what if you could get a tax credit for having something on the Canadian website, or what would it be if you expanded the actual tax credit in the production services tax credit or something.

How do you get private equity in the mix as well, to match the government's funding? Because our licence fees for conventional broadcasting are low in Canada, it's a realistic part of our life. We have to have a highly regulated industry and we have to spend those dollars as brilliantly as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

Mr. Mai, go ahead, please.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'll start with Mr. Bach...if you could answer Mr. Julian's questions regarding disability support and cost-benefits.

[Michael Bach]

We've had a costing done on this. It is linked to the jurisdictional issue that's been brought up a couple of times, on who does what. Given the current environment.... The federal government has identified that it will continue to play a role in transfers to individuals. We think that persons with severe disabilities are a deserving group for a federal transfer. The way to begin to build that is by making the disability tax credit refundable and using that as the first step in a strategy that would bring up to the federal level about 500,000 people with severe disabilities who are currently spending their entire lives on welfare and social assistance at the provincial level. We know the stigma that is associated with social assistance. It was designed as a short-term, temporary program. People are now spending decades on it and living in terrible circumstances of poverty.

That would cost the federal government $1.1 billion, and we're not suggesting it can all be done at once but over a phase-in. That would free up sufficient dollars at the provincial and territorial level--we had an external consultant prepare a study for us--that would virtually guarantee Canadians with the disability-related supports they need to participate in employment. You would then have people who have severe disabilities and are currently on social assistance having their income needs taken care of by the federal government and the vast majority being able to begin to participate in the labour market. That's going to be savings all the way around.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Downey, in your brief you mentioned a study by Deloitte that showed that every dollar invested in public broadcasting creates almost four dollars in incoming value. Do you have any specific recommendations? We know the CBC has been under attack lately. Assuming they'll continue to be under attack, can you recommend specifically what the finance committee should do regarding the CBC?

[Ferne Downey]

We think you should have a higher per capita tax. Rather than paying $33 per head, go up to $40. The CBC has been certainly in some ways starved of serious and cogent investment, and they're really poised to do some incredible work in terms of the digital portals they're building--incredible work for all of Canada. I think that's the most important thing. The stability of knowing what your production budget is going to be the next year is pivotal.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have a question for CARP. In your brief you speak about how, if we look at the low-income cut-off rate, there are 300,000 people in Canada who are over the age of 65 who live in poverty. We've said that this government could actually just get rid of that. We could address the issue. Do you feel the government's doing enough to really address that issue in terms of having people over 65 who live in poverty?

[Susan Eng]

Certainly the recent changes are a major step forward. The category of dealing with seniors' poverty has not been addressed adequately in the past by several governments, so the fact that there was a massive amount of money addressing the poorest among the seniors was a massive step forward, and we would never say there was anything wrong with that.

As you point out, there are some estimated 300,000 people who today live in poverty under the official poverty line. We would make the point that in fact they don't all get the official poverty line amount. They live on $3,000 to $9,000 instead. Those are the people we have to help the most. But 1.6 million Canadians are living in....

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

We're saying that we have to have the tax credit refundable. What percentage would that benefit in terms of the members you represent, in terms of having a refundable tax credit, or a basic amount--the majority, a little more?

Anyone?

[Susan Eng]

The estimates are that 25% of Canadians provide heavy care. Those are the people who would benefit the most. Of course all of the others provide wonderful care, but it's the 25% that would be most important.

[Nadine Henningsen]

And is this a ballpark figure?

[Susan Eng]

Two million Canadians would immediately see benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Ms. Anghel, how many people did you say were employed in the marine industry?

[Sara Anghel]

At the time we conducted our study, in direct manufacturing jobs there were 7,000 manufacturing jobs; in direct and indirect impact, there were close to 400,000.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

That's impressive. We had the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, and they have 35,000 indirect. They also have 55,000 retirees.

I'm listening with interest, and I think we all share what has been expressed by many members—the needs of our seniors. But do you ever think about—and I really want you to answer this—our government debt, which stands at $680 billion? And I think if you combine all three levels, it's $1.3 trillion. It could be much more than that; I don't think anybody really knows.

It's been properly stated that we have an aging population. Our demographics are shifting rapidly. We have had some of the worst market returns in the last 75 years. And I don't want to be the one to pour cold water, but the reality.... And we haven't even talked about inequity in public and private sectors. Do you talk about those things? I want to not only talk about them, but when we are asked to look at some of the requests—and they're good requests, I don't think there is anybody here who wouldn't say “Let's do this”—do your actuaries look at this when you make these and say “This is realistic” or “No, it's not”? Are you concerned about those things?

I'll start with you, Ms. Eng, and then maybe we'll just....

[Susan Eng]

Well, actually we anticipated that question. It's always “How are we going to pay for those kinds of asks?” If you're going to lift every senior out of poverty, it's $1 billion to $2 billion. A caregiver support system might be another $1 billion. So where is it going to come from?

Of course, you could find savings in the existing health care expenditures. But we asked our membership—who are, by the way, a group of people who are already retired; they're taxpayers, they're strong Conservative supporters, and they do talk about fiscal responsibility. We did ask: “Would you pay a new tax? Should there be a new tax? Would you earmark it?” And in fact there is sufficient support for the idea that if you had it earmarked as health care tax, or earmarked as tax to deal with poverty, those are the things people are receptive to.

I'm not suggesting that you go with that tax right away, but there was one idea that was floated out there about taxing the top 1%. We asked our people if they would tax those people who had $250,000 or more two or three percentage points. Those kinds of measures, and estate tax and so on, are opportunities to raise from $3 billion to $4 billion in taxes.

So on one hand, our people are always saying, “Cut the waste. Save the money. Divert the demand.” But when push comes to shove, and you can't be more efficient, they are receptive to a conversation around earmarked taxes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Yes, go ahead.

[Nadine Henningsen]

I would just say—from a family caregiver point of view—it's those vital retirees who are the family caregivers. And if we don't support that family caregiver role, they'll burn out. They'll get sick and then they'll be patients in our acute care system and they'll be costing us.

The total value provided by family caregivers—individuals who are 45 years and older, looking after senior loved ones and relatives—is $25 billion. To us, it's not a cost or an expense; it's an investment. We must keep the family caregiver vital, healthy, well, and provide them with support.