Finance Committee on Sept. 17th, 2009

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Speaking of uncontrollable members, Mr. McCallum, for seven minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here.

My first subject is foreign aid and I have a question for Ms. Dendys, but it requires a little bit of a preamble.

Dale Orr, one of Canada's most respected economists, recently wrote a paper in response to the government's so-called plan to reduce the deficit. Whereas the government focused on those who wouldn't lose, such as provincial governments, Dale Orr's focus was on those who would lose as a consequence of this. The first losers he identified were employment insurance payers, because the premiums will go up a lot. But he also identified a category of expenditure of transfers of various kinds that would be subject to particularly severe restraint. Included in this component was foreign aid.

So according to Dale Orr, one of Canada's most respected economists, foreign aid has been singled out for particularly severe restraint in upcoming years. This might be perfectly understandable to the Conservatives because, by definition, recipients of foreign aid don't vote in federal elections in Canada—although it does make it a bit more difficult to understand why the NDP would wish to support the government.

My question is, if Dale Orr is right and foreign aid is singled out for particularly severe restraint—and I don't know what that means, but maybe 1% or 2% growth per year in the coming years—how would you react to that?

[Chris Dendys]

I realize you have a lot of tough choices to make around the table, and I am not stupid and realize that foreign aid is not an issue that people think generates a lot of votes. However, I respect his opinion, obviously.

I would be disappointed. I would think that Canadians would be disappointed. I think we have an opportunity to show tremendous leadership. I think it is short-sighted and not testament to the Canadian vision of the past to think that advocating stimulus within our own country and cutting aid across the world is fair or just or that it will not have an impact in the long term.

By the way, because I represent grassroots individuals from across the country, I will say that Canadians do care about these issues. They want to see Canadian leadership.

We've made a commitment to the world to live up to a timetable for meeting 0.7%. We are not asking for anything that is insurmountable; we are being very prudent in our asks. We are asking the committee to encourage the government to live up to even an 8% increase for next year in foreign aid. That's between $300 and $400 million. This is a commitment that has been made and one that we should be living up to.

I guess that's my response.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

My second question is for Ms. Golfman, and it again requires a little bit of a preamble. I've always thought this government had a very strong anti-intellectual bias, witness its cutting of funds for research granting councils and funds for science. I could also say it has an anti-cultural bias, witness its cutting of funds for culture, but I want to deal with the academic/research side.

This anti-intellectual bias against research is across the board, but as a former dean of arts I am particularly sensitive that nowhere is it more concentrated than in the social sciences and humanities, witness the government's requirement that some fraction of the meagre funding that already exists go into business-related studies as opposed to whatever the granting councils might choose.

I know this government sometimes exacts retribution against people who criticize them, so I wouldn't criticize you if you didn't want to comment. But my question to you is whether it is becoming increasingly difficult for people in the social sciences and humanities to cope, given the attitude and the actions of the Conservative government?

[Dr. Noreen Golfman]

Thank you for that very leading question.

To respond as diplomatically as possible, it's our view, and the view of, I would say, the 50,000 scholars that our federation represents, that it is really counterproductive to be undermining the vast majority of researchers in this country who are dedicated to doing the kind of research that, as I was listening to the witnesses around this table, informs every single argument that people are making for child development, literacy, cultural health, or you name it, the whole basket of issues that are before you. It is those researchers who make those contributions. We think it is short-sighted to be focusing on business exclusively, because that focus really undermines, for example, the engagement that those social scientists and humanities, who are not necessarily in business schools, want to have with improving our social problems or taking on the challenges. It's not just a business matter.

We have such a fabulous track record in this country of cultural production, of artistic production, of social science and humanities research. There are enormous pressures on those budgets right now.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you. I want to have time to make one last comment. I thank you very much for your answer.

I would also say, NDP willing, help is on the way.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Mr. Laforest, for seven minutes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day to all of the witnesses. My first question is for Mr. Pineau.

I had a question concerning a comment you made earlier and it was answered in part by Ms. Downey. Regarding the demands that you have made and the importance of the arts in Canada, what type of return on our investment are we looking at? Ms. Downey answered the question in part, but more as it relates to the arts, film and television. She mentioned the significant economic spinoffs generated. However, with respect to the performing arts such as theatre, music and dance, can we expect to see similar spinoffs when the federal government invests in supporting and promoting culture in general?

[Alain Pineau]

Yes, in fact we can. I can't quote you all of the figures off the top of my head, but I do know that depending on the sector or method of calculation used, we can expect to see either a full return, or double or double and a half return on the investment. There is some disagreement as to the exact figures. I would be happy to send you the supporting data for the performing arts, in terms of the overall economy. I promise to send you additional statistical information on this subject.

Briefly, I would just like to emphasize the importance of reliable statistics for this sector. When I meet with some members of Parliament, I hear how each one has his or her own statistics on culture. It's hard to know exactly what these statistics mean. There is admittedly a problem here. That is why we feel that if the government and parliamentarians believe this sector is truly worth caring about, then it should provide it with some basic tools, namely statistics.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm asking you this, because the core mission of the Canada Council and of culture in general is to contribute to the development of Canadians and Quebeckers. However, some people don't seem to understand that this is important. They don't understand the meaning of these numbers. So then, without question, we need to emphasize how very important it is to invest in culture and the arts. But it is equally important to provide us with the statistics to support our argument for providing equal, if not, more funding to this sector.

[Alain Pineau]

Absolutely. That's the positive side of the negative side of the cultural sector. Creating jobs in this sector is not a very costly proposition because artists and people working in the cultural sector generally do not earn a great deal. I'm not saying that they should continue to live in poverty. However, if we seriously want to create jobs in the culture sector, we can do so relatively inexpensively compared to other industries that may not be forward looking.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That ties in with the second question that I would like to put to Ms. Downey. The question is also for Mr. Waddell.

Do you have some idea of the average income of members of your association who work in the film and television industry?

[Ferne Downey]

It's less than $25,000 a year.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I think it's important to emphasize and re-emphasize that contrary to popular belief, people working in this sector do not all earn a great deal of money. A handful of them may, but not the majority. I believe you would do well to mention that when governments invest in culture, they also see a return on their investment. The cultural industry employs people who do not depend on the State to get by. In fact, these people get by with very modest incomes.

You answered my question. Thank you.

Ms. Golfman, you urged the government to invest more heavily in social sciences and humanities research. I would like you to give us a few concrete examples of social sciences and humanities research. I realize that there may not be many people tuning in to our proceedings, but there are still some who are listening to us.

What exactly does research in the social sciences and humanities entail? What type of research may be important for society's development and for the work being done by researchers?

[Dr. Noreen Golfman]

Child development, literacy, and culture, but I think one very strong, forceful example of the success of the progressive nature of the research that's been going on in universities in the last several years is something called the CURA program or, in English, the Community-University Research Alliance. It's a program sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which the federation takes credit for having invented in the first place, and it's an attempt to get academics beyond the ivory tower and engaged with community activists and entrepreneurs.

It has been hugely successful. The demand from the community is to involve researchers in matters challenging social cohesion, let us say, whether that be issues around poverty, literacy, or childhood development, or issues about communities that are fracturing and emptying out. I come from Terre-Neuve, where a lot of social sciences and humanities research has been devoted to, say, the collapse of the fishery. There are very concrete examples like this, which have stimulated more research and benefit the local, the rural, and the city environments in which these people are living.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Ms. Golfman.

Merci, monsieur Laforest.

Monsieur Wallace, seven minutes, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome our guests here today. I have a few questions. I won't be able to get to everybody, but I appreciate your attendance.

First of all, let me start with Ms. Golfman. I'm actually a double major in economics and political science, so I guess I'm from your side of the equation, but we have heard quite a bit, including yesterday from organizations, engineers, and scientists, from people who say they want more money for research and more money for people. This year we announced $136 million for university-based social sciences and humanities research. We announced that money this spring, so we've recognized that.

In a nutshell, how do you think the government as an organization should evaluate the value of what you would call “science” science, compared to the humanities or social science, and how should we balance that? Do you have any concept of a ratio that we should be dealing with?

[Dr. Noreen Golfman]

Scientists need lab equipment and they need more money to do the kind of research they do. SSHRC is relatively underfunded. Certainly we'll always probably get less money, because the researcher doesn't need this whole apparatus to do his or her research. But there is, I think, in some sense a kind of false distinction between these worlds.

We're increasingly interdisciplinary. I'm sure you're hearing that from the tri-councils. We're not saying give us more at the expense of science.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Of somebody else; I appreciate that.

To RESULTS, I don't have much time left, but we do hear your message. In fact, I think we have heard the message. In the 2008 budget, we met our commitment for doubling our aid to Africa. We have $5 billion to 2010 for aid. I think this government has been active in trying to get to where we want, with about $450 million towards AIDS research and fighting some of those issues.

So we hear you. It is a tough year, as you've indicated. We'll see what comes of it.

I want to turn to my friends from the arts community, if I could.

As I said yesterday, I'm pretty active in the arts myself, not as a participant but as an audience member. I have been working since 1999 to try to get a performing arts centre for the city of Burlington. It's under construction. We can thank partly our government for that happening in terms of infrastructure money.

I'm a member of Theatre Aquarius. This summer we went to Shaw again, and we've gone to Stratford. I'm very active in the performing arts piece in terms of being somebody who pays money to go and see it.

I have two points, and I'd like to start with Mr. Waddell. We've met before on this issue.

One of your recommendations--I like to deal with the specifics--is the averaging of income over five years. That hasn't been in existence since 1981.

[Stephen Waddell]

Since 1982.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, okay, it may have ended in 1982, but it got cancelled in 1981. It's almost 30 years old.

How do I justify to my small business owner who doesn't know how much money they're going to make from year to year that my actors get to average their income over a five-year period and they can't?

[Stephen Waddell]

You should tell your small business colleagues that income tax averaging could advantage them as well. It shouldn't be limited to just performers or artists; it should apply to all small business owners, to accountants and lawyers and anyone who has fluctuating or lumpy income.

The point of this is to average it over a period of time so that you're not taxed at an excessive rate for a good year in a bad year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm not going to assume that you were around, but since you put it in a recommendation, do you understand why it was cancelled in 1981-82?

[Stephen Waddell]

Well, knowing something about the finance department officials and the government then and now, the governments and the finance department like employees. They don't like independent contractors, which our members and others are. So they're attempting to force everybody into the employee mould. The consequence is that independent contractors are having a really tough time surviving.

Just to amplify Ms. Downey's response, in our jurisdiction, the average earnings of an actor member total around $15,000. It's a significant problem to survive--to survive--in this country.