I really enjoyed the last few moments of this committee, Madam Chair.
I'm a bit fed up with hearing that, when we fund culture, we expect something in return. S.E. Grummett said it well. I don't want us to ask to see maple syrup, moose antlers and poutine in every production we invest in. I'm fed up with that.
When we fund culture, what we're funding is our talent, our creativity. We also want to show the world that we can compete with other nations, such as the Americans and the Europeans, who have more resources than we do. When people ask where the poutine was in the film that we funded with public money, it frustrates me to hear that, you have no idea.
The other thing that deeply frustrates me is the fact that culture is still seen as an expense, and people expect a production that yields a profit, like that of S.E. Grummett. Artists are told that they have been given money and are then asked how much the production made. However, culture shouldn't be viewed as project‑by‑project funding, which will bring in money per project. Culture is an investment in society that generates $65 billion in gross domestic product, or GDP. The GDP of culture in Canada is $65 billion. Every dollar invested in culture yields $29 in benefits of all kinds. We shouldn't just look at the individual production of one organization or one troop. We have to look at everything that production generates in general, including with restaurants, hotels, the taxis we take to go see a show or film, the babysitters we hire to babysit our children, and so on. Money flows when we go see a show, far beyond the ticket we buy and the popcorn we buy when we get there.
I am fed up with this narrative that portrays culture as an expense and a luxury. It's a societal need. It's part of our identity, and I would like us to start seeing it that way. That applies to the opposition parties and the government, in the way we create programs. We have to stop saying that we can't afford to increase the funding for this or that program. No, we can't afford not to increase it. We can't afford to underfund culture. I'm really sick and tired of us holding every production to account because it didn't have enough maple syrup, antlers or hockey. It's becoming unbearable to listen to.
I'm looking at the figures that were published in a Canadian Chamber of Commerce study. This wasn't published by a Quebec lobby group peddling its rhetoric; this was from the Canadian chambers of commerce, people who must know a thing or two about grants and investments. Are we going to turn our noses up at tax revenue for governments to the tune of $17 billion per year, just because we think it's a luxury to fund culture, or that S.E. Grummett's production won't bring in enough money to pay back what we have invested? It's a bit ridiculous to think like that.
Thirteen jobs are generated per million dollars of production. That's still from the same study. That's more than oil and gas, if that works as an argument for my colleagues. I think the government should start considering culture not as an expense, but as a need, a necessity. It's our identity that we're expressing. It's being exported, and we must not attach requirements and conditions when we decide to fund culture in all its forms.
Thank you.