Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your attention. My name is Brian Pallister and I am the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance. I apologize in advance for my French. I only started studying French at the age of 50 and I find it rather difficult—but I know that I have to try.

I declare the meeting open and welcome witnesses and committee members alike.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance has been given a mandate to study and report on budget policy submissions. This year's theme is Canada's place in a competitive world.

We asked you all ahead of time to limit your comments to five minutes, although we appreciate that this is no mean feat. Nevertheless, we will be enforcing the time limit. If you care to look my way from time to time, I will let you know when you have a minute or less remaining. I will ask you to conclude after five minutes so that you can dialogue with committee members and answer their questions.

Let us get started. Our first witness this morning is Martin Godbout, President and Chief Executive Officer of Genome Canada.

Welcome, Mr. Godbout. You have five minutes.

[Dr. Martin Godbout, President and Chief Executive Officer, Genome Canada]

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning everybody. I am delighted to have the opportunity to meet with the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and to provide an overview of some of Genome Canada's most important accomplishments.

Over the next few minutes, I will be sketching a brief outline of some of our major national and international research projects, explaining what we had gained from the investments in research we have been making since February 2000, and discussing the many opportunities that will be open to us over the next few years.

Before getting into the details on the ground, let me first give you the view from the 30,000-foot level. What is genomics really all about? Why is it so important that Canada position itself among the world leaders in this new science and technology field anyway? What kind of return will Canadians get from their investment? Finally, why should you fund it?

To begin with, the kind of knowledge genomics is creating is unlike anything else we have ever known. It's giving us, quite literally, the master key to unlock the basic code of life, all forms of life--human, animal, microbial, trees, crops, almost anything that is living. Because it cuts across the entire range of life forms on earth, it has the potential to change and impact almost every sector of our economy, from agriculture to environment, fisheries, forestry, animal and human health, and many related industrial processes, changing our understanding of our world fundamentally and forever.

It is small wonder that some economists have said that genomics will be one of the major driving forces of the world economy in years to come.

With this in mind, and having understood the potential offered by genomics, the federal government founded Genome Canada in February 2000. In so doing, Canada sent a very clear message to its partners around the world—we will not stand idly by while discoveries, and their ensuing benefits, are made elsewhere. Canada is at the avant-garde of this technological revolution, and our country will become the destination of choice for investors, cutting-edge researchers, and the finest scientific minds.

What has happened since February 2000? To put it succinctly, a great deal. In six short years, Genome Canada has contributed to positioning Canada amongst the best genomics research teams in the world. Allow me to give you some examples.

Genome Canada has supported more than 100 multidisciplinary and multisectorial research projects, both at the national and international level. In addition, it has developed internationally competitive scientific and technology platforms, which provide Canada with the means to discover, develop and deploy new knowledge.

As I am sure you remember, British Colombian researchers sequenced the SARS virus in 2003 within a time period that the world health organization classed as staggering. Other Canadian researchers isolated stem cells linked to breast cancer, thus paving the way for new therapeutic targets and new cancer-prevention strategies.

Between 2002 and 2004, Canada has registered more than 425 inventions and patents relating to applications of genomics research. This means that we rank fourth in the world.

We have entered into partnerships with other countries that recognize genomics as being cutting-edge technology, including, amongst many others, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Estonia and the United States.

If we achieved all of that in the last six years, imagine what we will accomplish in the future.

The fact is that we are now past the point at which the promise of genomics is theoretical and far away. It's here and it's now, offering real solutions to real problems of our day-to-day lives, driving innovation, productivity, and competitiveness; transforming research projects into commercial applications; and creating wealth for the benefit of all Canadians. We see a very bright future if, and only if, we sustain the enormous momentum we have worked so hard to build over the past years. Doing so will require clear commitments and additional funding. Genome Canada is asking for $380 million for the next three years to fuel more breakthroughs, realize more successes, and provide an even greater return on investment for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, sir.

We must now move on to the next witness, Mr. Bastien Gilbert, the Executive Director of the Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gilbert. You have five minutes.

[Bastien Gilbert, Chief Executive Officer, Regroupement des centres d'artistes autogérés du Québec, Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

With me today is my colleague, Lorraine Hébert, who is the Executive Director of the Regroupement québécois de la danse, who will introduce the Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres, of which I am not the Executive Director, because we make up...

[Lorraine Hébert, Executive Director, Regroupement québécois de la danse, Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres]

... a coalition, a group of eight national and 13 regional organizations in Quebec. Consequently, we represent the needs and interests of over 14,000 artists and cultural workers.

Our movement was established in 1999 to make all levels of government understand how vital public funding is, not only for artists, but also for the societies of which they are part.

I will now turn the floor over to Bastien Gilbert, who will present our brief.

[Bastien Gilbert]

Although our movement began by working initially, since 1999, with the Quebec government to get budget increases for the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec, we have not been able to disregard what was going on in Canada, particularly because the great institution known as the Canada Council for the Arts, which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary next year, in 2007, has played an extremely important role in recognizing emerging arts over the last 50 years, and currently finds itself in extremely difficult financial straits.

Although the current government made some positive announcements last year—an increase in funding of $20 million this year, and $30 million next year—these increases are still not enough to meet the needs expressed by artists, writers, crafts people and others who work in the cultural field, not just in Quebec, but throughout Canada.

You will have noticed that in our paper, we drafted a sort of business plan for Quebec. This is the funding we require to meet the basic needs of artists and cultural workers in Quebec. In this business plan, the role of the Canada Council for the Arts is crucial.

Quebec has played its role, to some extent. In fact, the Quebec government has assumed its responsibilities by providing the Conseil des arts et des lettres with budgets that fall somewhat short of what we requested. Nevertheless, for several years now, we have received some satisfaction in this regard. We are therefore in a very good position to ask Canada to play its role with the artistic and cultural community in Canada.

Why is the Canada Council for the Arts so important for our sector? The reason is that we are somewhat the equivalent for the arts of what Mr. Godbout was explaining for the sciences. The Canada Council for the Arts provides funding for research in various areas such as theatre, music, visual and media arts. Often, this research involves new and fundamental needs. Artists must remain at the cutting edge of new technology.

Often, the Canada Council for the Arts succeeds in responding to these issues, and it is in a good position to do so. As you know, the Council is an arms' length body, in other words it gets its funding from the Canadian Parliament, but its decisions are made by internal committees, advisory committees and juries made up of peers, which are able to assess the value of proposals or the quality of organizations that apply for funding from the Canada Council for the Arts.

For these reasons, we, together with our colleagues from the Canadian Coalition for the arts, are calling for an increase of $100 million in the Canada Council's budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will not continue with Ms. Diane Francoeur, from the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec.

Thank you.

[Dr. Diane Francoeur, President, Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec]

My name is Diane Francoeur and I am the President of the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec. Our association represents all doctors specializing in these fields, and we consider ourselves as experts on women's health in Quebec. In addition, we have many ties to Canadian society.

I am here to talk to you about three major health issues of importance to us which, unfortunately, are not equally accessible in all provinces. We believe very strongly that the federal government should be investing in equal accessibility for all women in Canada.

So I will proceed to the first point. As a result of the discoveries made by our friend in Genome Canada, prenatal diagnostics have developed very quickly, so that tools are now available and accessible in all industrialized countries, except Canada.

The current situation means that women who want access to prenatal diagnostics have to turn to the private sector. It is not always made clear or stated explicitly that these services exist, and they are not always readily accessible. Often, by the time women find out about them, it is too late.

We also do not want to advertise these services, because we want to promote our free system, which is available to all. Unfortunately, women do not have access to this technology and therefore cannot have fetal abnormalities detected early. Given that women have 1.4 children on average, we think they should have access to this technology in order to make the best choices and then prepare themselves for an abnormal baby or, at least, to get the best care for their infant.

My second point has to do with recognizing infertility as a disease. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Canada, so that reproductive technology is reserved only for the wealthy or for older women who have been accumulating money for a number of years. The result is that women will have more multiple pregnancies, often rather later in life, with disastrous medical consequences.

I am also the head of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University Hospital Centre for Mothers and Children at the Sainte-Justice Hospital, where we have seen an increase in extremely premature infants in the last 10 to 15 years. A study was done in Alberta that approved the idea of subsidizing a program to implant a single embryo, in an effort to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies. This study showed undeniably that there would be an extremely beneficial effect on the frequency of premature births. We believe in this very strongly.

Unfortunately, since people spend a lot on in vitro fertilization, they often require to give themselves the maximum likelihood of becoming pregnant. And since women do not want to take any chances, they have multiple pregnancies, with all the disastrous consequences that go with that.

My third point is the new vaccination about which I will now tell you. It was approved this year, and in our opinion, as gynecologists, it is the best thing that has happened to women since the invention of the pill. This is the human papilloma virus vaccine, and it will do several things. The first objective is to reduce the number of cases of cancer.

Women have become so afraid of cancer that they are having their breasts, uterus and ovaries removed to prevent it. But we now have a good vaccine which, in three injections, will definitely make it possible to reduce cancer among Canadian women. Because the fact is that despite our good health care and accessible services, the fact remains that cancer still happens. So this vaccine is excellent news for us, and we would like the Canadian government to promote access to it for all young girls in Canada. Of course, in order to be effective, this vaccine should be given ideally, together with the vaccine for hepatitis B, before young girls have started to have sexual relations.

This vaccine will also protect them from sexually transmitted diseases. Canada has always been much more effective than the United States in eradicating sexually transmitted diseases. That provides us with an additional weapon for improving women's health.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much for your presentation, Dr. Francoeur.

Our next witness is Mr. Christian Blouin from Merck Frosst Canada.

Welcome, Mr. Blouin.

[Christian Blouin, Director, Public Health Policy and Government Relations, Merck Frosst Canada Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Christian Blouin. I am the Director of Public Health Policy and Government Relations for Merck Frosst Canada. I am accompanied by my colleague Rob Livingston, Ottawa Director of Merck Frosst, who will serve as a resource person for me during the question period.

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. Since our time is limited, I am going to focus only on the National Immunization Strategy. I would also like to thank Dr. Francoeur, who is giving me an extraordinary opportunity to build on what she had said.

Merck Frosst is asking the government of Canada for three specific things. The first is a commitment to renew the NIS program funding for provincial and territorial immunization programs. Specifically, that means the federal budget should include $100 million per year to continue to fund the existing program. It should also include adequate money to continue to fund the NIS infrastructure.

Our second request is that you expand the NIS. We believe a further $300 million per year should be provided to the provinces and territories under the program to add new and emerging vaccines.

Our third request is that the NIS funding be separated from the Canadian Health Transfer Payments to the provinces and territories, to ensure the funds can be tracked and evaluated, and to guarantee they will be used specifically for immunization programs.

We agree with this committee's view that recognized the need for our country to do what is necessary to ensure our citizens and businesses are healthy. Merck Frosst Canada is the Canadian subsidiary of a major international research-based pharmaceutical company. We invest $120 million annually in Canadian research which improves both the health and economic status of Canadians. We are keenly interested in the health of Canadians, and of our business and the economy in which we operate.

Improving health starts with the prevention of illness. It is well-documented that immunization programs are the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases.

In 2001, the government of Canada understood this and provided infrastructure funding of $45 million over five years for the NIS.

In 2004, it added $100 million per year for three years for the provinces and territories to pay for new immunization programs against meningitis, chickenpox, pneumococcal disease and whooping cough. That funding runs out March 31, 2007 and that is why I am here today.

Because of the NIS, provincial and territorial jurisdictions have expanded their publicly funded organization programs. Now, Canada—like the US, the UK and many other industrialized countries—has virtually universal coverage for these important vaccines.

If the NIS funding is not renewed, some provinces and territories may be forced to revert to the old system and not update the immunization programs for new vaccines. This could jeopardize the health of Canadians. Immunization could fall below the current standard of care we have now in Canada, and below the standards of other industrialized countries. Canada will once again have a patchwork across the country, as was previously the case, resulting in inequitable access for province to province, and we will begin to see diseases we had basically “cured” or prevented rising up again because infectious diseases don't stop at provincial borders. We have seen it with SARS., There the threat of a flu epidemic. We know about the West Nile virus and yesterday, the Minister of Health mentioned botulism.

We see this as a national responsibility. We strongly urge you to consider our request. Why should it be expanded?

New vaccines are imminent. I would like to focus mainly on one of them, Gardasil. Dr. Francoeur alluded to this vaccine which protect against cancer, and we are pleased to have it; Merck Frosst actually discovered it. Each year, 1,400 Canadian women are diagnosed with HPV, and 400 will die.

We are all saddened, with good reason, to hear about the death of a Canadian soldier. I would like to put things in perspective, without taking anything away from Canadian soldiers. But it must be said that one Canadian woman dies every day from cervical cancer. There is a way to end that.

The overall yearly cost of cervical cancer has been estimated at $270 million. The vaccine would be far less expensive.

We are urging the committee to consider expanding the National Immunization Strategy and to ensure there is a mechanism in place to cover new vaccines as they are marketed in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We will now continue with Mr. Trevor Hanna, Vice-President of the Quebec Federation of University Students.

Welcome, Mr. Hanna.

[Trevor Hanna, Vice-President, Federal and International Affairs, Quebec Federation of University Students]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We would like to thank the members of the committee for having invited us to make our presentation today.

Our brief includes eight recommendations which can be found on page 9 and focus on three main priorities: first, reforming and increasing transfer payments for post-secondary education; second, reviewing tax spending on post-secondary education; third, ending discrimination against students.

Today I would like to focus on the issue of transfer payments for post-secondary education.

First, the QFUS is asking for the creation of a dedicated transfer for post-secondary education as currently exists for health. A dedicated transfer would have two main advantages: first, it would clearly define the federal contribution to post-secondary education—ensuring transparency—and second it would make federal funding for post-secondary education predictable, greatly simplifying the provinces' budgetary planning.

Second, we are calling for an unconditional transfer. Each province has unique needs in relation to post-secondary education. In Quebec, for example, the greatest need continues to be funding for the system as a whole. However, in Nova Scotia, where tuition fees are the highest in the country, the biggest problem is accessibility. That is why the Government of Nova Scotia has committed itself to reducing tuition fees at its universities and colleges to the national average by 2011.

Obviously, a national post-secondary education strategy can never succeed if it is based on rigid conditions. That is why the provinces must have complete flexibility in administering their post-secondary education system.

Third, we want the federal government to prioritize transfers as a way to fund post-secondary education. Along with cash transfers to the provincial government, the federal government also contributes to post-secondary education funding through tax spending that provides direct benefits to individuals. Federal tax spending includes income tax credits for tuition fees, tax credits for education savings, and the education savings grant.

Generally speaking, those programs are based on tuition fees. Provinces that opt for accessibility, as Quebec does, therefore receive less than their fair share of the tax spending.

Still, cash transfers remain the most equitable form of federal funding for post-secondary education. They also do less to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction and provide the provinces with the flexibility they need to respond to their own specific problems.

Finally, we ask that cash transfers for post-secondary education be considered a first step in resolving the fiscal imbalance. In view of the health agreement signed in 2004, the first priority in any resolution should be targeted at the provinces' second largest fiscal burden, post-secondary education.

The 1996 reductions in transfer payments are the most often cited cause of the present imbalance. It seems logical to conclude from this that restoring those cuts should be the first step towards resolving the fiscal imbalance. To restore funding to where it was before the cuts, an increase of $4.9 billion for post-secondary education must be provided by the federal government.

In addition, an increase in cash transfers for post-secondary education is certainly not controversial, and is rather the subject of a broad consensus among provincial governments. In a joint statement issued after the Summit on Post-secondary Education and Skills Training held by the Council of the Federation, the provincial premiers called for increased federal funding for post-secondary education. More specifically, they called for an increase of $4.9 billion in cash transfers.

That concludes my testimony today. I look forward to answering any question you may have in either official language. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, sir.

The next speaker will be Jack Robitaille, from the Union des artistes.

Welcome, sir. You have five minutes.

[Jack Robitaille, Vice-President, Union des artistes]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Vice-President of the Quebec section of the Union des artistes. The UDA represents performing artists working in French. It currently has 11,400 active members and interns.

The UDA's mission is to identify, study, defend, and develop artists' economic, social, and moral interests. It currently manages more than forty collective agreements covering sectors such as advertising, cinema, recordings, dubbing, the stage, and television.

In 2001, the cultural sector employed 611,000 people, or 4.1% of the workforce, which is more than agriculture, forestry, mining, and the oil and gas industry combined. Its workforce is one of the most highly educated: 40% have a university degree, compared with 22% in the general population.

Economically speaking, Canadians spent $22.8 billion on cultural goods and services. Public funding to not-for-profit performing arts organizations generate tax revenues in the order of 176%.

We believe that the importance of culture for our economy and our identity is what encouraged the government of Canada and Quebec to ratify the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and to promote it.

Those are good reasons for attaching significant importance to culture during prebudget consultations. However, the socio-economic conditions of performing artists in Canada in the sound recording, theatre, and audio visual fields have not progressed over the past 20 years. They stand out because of their inferiority in comparison with other category of workers.

The economic and cultural health of our country is however closely linked to the social economic health of our performing artists, which, in turn, is dependent upon their receiving full royalties for their artistic productions.

The time has come to at least recognized copyright, as Canada promised to do in 1997, by signing the World Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and to extend the notion of private copy to audio visual works.

To ensure a more profound impact on artists' incomes, tax measures such as an exemption from copyright revenues could be considered. Measures that are adapted to self-employed cultural workers must be put in place. The Employment Insurance Commission should be able to come up with creative ways of enabling self-employed artists to benefit from some form of income insurance.

The government must move as quickly as possible to double the budget for the Canada Council for the Arts and ensure that the substantial portion of the new funds go to artists. Funding must be increased for cinema, given its success here and abroad.

The government is however proposing $4 million in cuts to the Museums Assistance Program, under dubious pretexts, and a reduction of approximately $12 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs's Public Diplomacy Program which funds the international activities of university and cultural organizations.

The government is currently studying, considering, and wavering on providing assistance to cinema, at a time when it is hugely popular. If the government wants to meet its objective in terms of taxation, equal treatment, innovation, and common values, it must invest in culture and above all in artists.

Artists are leaders in promoting Canadian identity throughout the world. They are better than anyone else at saying who we are, what space is ours and how we inhabit it. It is time for the government to recognize this contribution and to enthusiastically support these embassadors.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Gilles Gagnon, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the association representing Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

Thank you for coming, sir. You have five minutes.

[Gilles Gagnon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aeterna Zentaris Inc., Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D)]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to extend a warm hello to you and to all members of the committee, and to thank you for giving us the opportunity to address you today on behalf of Rx&D, the association representing Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

My name is Gilles Gagnon, and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of Aeterna Zentaris, a global biopharmaceutical company whose corporate headquarters is located in Quebec City.

With me this morning, is Brigitte Nolet, the Vice-President of Federal Affairs at Rx&D.

Rx&D is an association composed of over 50 research-based companies throughout the country. Its mission is to improve the quality of life of all Canadians and enhance our health care system by fostering the discovery, development and availability of new medicines and vaccines.

Rx&D member companies represent a significant economic lever for Canada, generating more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs country-wide and contributing significantly to industrial R&D growth. Every year, we inject no less than $4.5 billion into the Canadian economy, and invest $1billion in research and development.

By the way, $1 billion is the average cost of developing just one new, innovative medicine for patients, that will take 12 years to get onto the market. Innovative patented medicines, although one of the most cost-effective aspects of our health care system represent only 8% of the total budget. In the public's view, pharmaceuticals and spending often seem to go hand in hand. In my opinion, this is a misconception; the connection instead should be in terms of investments and pharmaceuticals.

For instance, since 1985, despite the aging population, pharmaceuticals have succeeded in reducing hospitalizations by 35%, not to mention the radical drop in mortality for those stricken with terminal illnesses such as cancer or AIDS. This is absolutely incredible! Incredible, yes, but not magic.

That is all very well, but Canada is now evolving as part of a global system. We are facing a world-wide reality: we must face up to the competitiveness of emerging countries such as China and India, where investments are increasing all the time. The challenge facing subsidiaries of Canadian pharmaceutical companies is to attract investments here, to Canada, in order to continue promoting research for the benefit of patients. We are facing significant challenges.

Since Rx&D's members operate in a global context, our ability to increase investments in human capital, physical capital and innovation obviously depends on our commercial environment. Of course, in order to have a commercial environment, there are some measures we would like to see implemented.

With respect to intellectual property we were very pleased that the government passed legislation on October 4 of this year that would protect research data. We are very proud of that. We were very eager to have this new measure passed, and that has now been done. The next matter we will be discussing together will be the extension of the patent period.

We must continue to benefit from attractive tax measures that can attract investment. In a global context, the income tax credit must be extended to cover collaborative international R&D work conducted in Canada. The part of the work done by the Canadian subsidiary, in a global research context, should be eligible for the Canadian tax credit.

In addition, there are other disciplines that are now part of research according to the definition of the OECD, and yet these disciplines are not recognized for the purposes of certain tax measures in Canada. More specifically, I am referring to research in the social sciences, more particularly in health economics. For example, studies on pharmacoeconomics should be eligible for tax credits.

I also represent a very important biotechnology industry. We do have tax credits, but they are not payable in Canada, particularly in the case of public companies.

Biopharmaceutical companies invest a great deal of money. It is very expensive to develop drugs. This is the same area in which the major pharmaceutical companies are involved. R&D companies are not in a position to generate revenue quickly enough to be able to claim tax credits and cover their research costs. Refundable tax credits should be available to these companies just as they are to Canadian-controlled small private companies, with taxable revenue of less than $200,000.

In addition, it would be important to stimulate alliances between pharmaceutical and biotech companies. That's part of the recognition of a favourable environment. The milestone payments paid by pharmaceutical companies to biotechnology companies should also be part of the tax credits.

So all the measures that I've just discussed, be it recognition of research in Canadian subsidiaries, milestone payments to biotechnology companies to ensure a strong industry in Canada and the recognition of refundable tax credits for biotechnology, represent a minimum of $100 million.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gagnon.

Thank you all for your presentations. We will now go to a round of questions.

Mr. Pacetti, please, you have five minutes.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to thank all the witnesses for your presentations. They are always interesting. Here in Quebec, it's quite special because all the groups took less than their five minutes, therefore we're running a little bit ahead of schedule. I will therefore take the time remaining to them, Mr. Chairman. All right?

Trevor, I think that my colleagues will ask your this question,

but I couldn't help myself.

In your first recommendation, you asked for the reform and increase of the transfer payments for education, but you didn't say how much more money you are asking for nor how this is currently distributed between post-secondary education and social and health programs.

Do you have the breakdown of the two amounts as currently allocated by the Government of Canada?

[Trevor Hanna]

No, I don't have the existing breakdown, but we're requesting an increase of $4.9 million for—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

You are asking for an increase, but after, these increases have to be unconditional. Are these two arguments in opposition to one another? You're asking the amounts transferred to post-secondary education be increased, but without conditions.

[Trevor Hanna]

Yes, that's correct, that's our request. We find that each province has specific needs that it must meet. Therefore, the provinces must enjoy complete flexibility in the administration of the post-secondary education system.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I think that my colleagues will be asking for more information.

Mr. Gilbert, last year around the same time, did the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Lisa Frulla, make an announcement to the effect that the amount granted to the Canada Council for the Arts would be increased by $25 million or $50 million a year, if I'm not mistaken?

[Bastien Gilbert]

In late November of last year, Ms. Frulla had announced an increase of $150 million for the Canada Council budget.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

What happened to those sums?

[Bastien Gilbert]

The election!