Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2010

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

I will now turn to Ms. Kenny. Even though it was not of our doing, as members of Parliament, I want to tell you how deeply we regret the decision made by the government, for ideological reasons that are totally baffling, to do away with the long-form census—a tool that gave us the data and figures necessary to deliver the services you should receive, the services you are entitled to under Canadian law. As a lawmaker, I wanted to apologize to you, even though our party had nothing to do with the decision.

We are here to study budget considerations, and the bottom line is that the whole issue of service offerings has to do with public spending. Would you be so kind as to check the definition and to give us an idea of what that means in terms of lost investment in Canada's francophone and Acadian communities?

[Marie-France Kenny]

Are you talking about the census?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Precisely, and I am also talking about what it means when you do not have an adequate statistical basis on which to make informed decisions.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Thank you for your apology and your question. However, I must say that the FCFA has discussed and debated the census issue at length. I would be happy to discuss it with you at another time. But, as for the money and investments we are looking for today, it is important to recognize that francophone and Acadian communities are active in every arena, the same arenas as the English-speaking majority, and that we are a key partner to the government that can help it fulfil its obligations and role with respect to linguistic duality.

So that is where we stand. Earlier, I heard a woman say that if caregivers were to disappear, it would be a lot more expensive for the government. The same goes for francophone communities and agencies across the country. Basically, they are able to deliver the services that the government is required to provide, but at a lower cost. If we were to disappear, it would be at a huge cost to the government. Keep in mind that there is a law and that the government still has to meet its obligations, which we are doing right now.

So it is a tremendous loss in terms of linguistic duality and Canada's French-speaking community.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Kenny.

Lastly, I have a quick question for Mr. Heurtel.

Thank you very much for your presentation, which addressed one of the most important issues. I have a quick question about definitions. It is always tempting to raise the drawbridge of our citadel once we are inside and we have what we need. How do others gain access? Is there a problem with the definition in terms of what can be funded?

[David Heurtel]

The CFC is in the process of developing criteria. As you can appreciate, we already have certain models, based on what was done in Quebec and Ontario. We use those models to establish objective criteria of what constitutes a major international event. Even in Quebec, we have identified various categories. There is the definition of a major international event, which sets out criteria on tourist percentages, budgets and participation rates, as well as several other objective criteria based on economic considerations.

There is also a category for up-and-coming major events, because there are more than just those that are already in the club, as you say. The idea is to develop the sector and to eventually develop others. So we are in the process of establishing criteria that also take into account the geographical representation of events.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Heurtel.

Mr. Pacetti, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing. It has been interesting.

I just have a couple of quick questions. I'll start with Rx&D, with Wendy. I think Ms. Block already asked you a question concerning intellectual property, but what is the difference if we are at a disadvantage in Canada versus the rest of our competitors worldwide? My understanding is that most of your companies are international. So does it really matter that Canada is at a disadvantage when it comes to intellectual property? Could you make that point a little bit clearer? What are we losing out on, as a country?

[Wendy Zatylny]

We're losing out on a lot. Our industry is, at its heart, a knowledge-based industry, and intellectual property protection is very much at the heart of the sustainability of the industry and its ability to innovate. So by Canada falling behind in a number of areas—and you'll see in our submission that we talk about data protection, we talk about patent term restoration. We're the only G-7 country that does not have that, and we already talked about right of appeal. In these three areas the global economy has become increasingly competitive to attract research mandates, and one of the factors that does get looked at is the IP regime of the country.

Much as on the surface it might appear that we are not losing much, the reality is it makes it much more difficult for our member companies, certainly for Canada, to compete on the global stage to attract the kinds of researchers, to attract the research mandate--

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, but our time is limited. The basis is that if you can't compete, you'll take your research elsewhere. Is that it?

[Wendy Zatylny]

We can get the research brought into Canada to create jobs and bring in more investment.

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

That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.

I have just a quick question for ACTRA. Mr. Waddell and Mr. Mulcair also alluded to this. In terms of attracting more investment...on the other side, you also said that you want CRTC to regulate some of the content on the web. For my Conservative friends, if we start regulating, how is that going to help you to get private investment on the private side? How do you reconcile the two?

[Stephen Waddell]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Pacetti.

Just to clarify, we're not talking about regulating the Internet. We're not suggesting that this is Saudi Arabia or China. We're talking about broadcasting specifically, and about 50% of the material that's currently on the Internet can be said to be broadcasting, so we are suggesting that the Internet and broadcasting on the Internet is just another platform for content delivery. So CTV, in terms of conventional broadcasting, is regulated, and yet ctv.ca, in its broadcasting on the Internet, is not. It's completely inconsistent.

We would want to see some form of regulation to encourage Canadian content in broadcasting on the Internet. That's what we're referring to.

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

Would that help with tracking private investment?

[Stephen Waddell]

It certainly hasn't hindered investment in the broadcasting sector, as we've seen, and there has been a lot of consolidation going on recently, as you are well aware. There is money to be made in the sector and we would suggest there is money to be made in broadcasting on the Internet as well, and it would attract investment, sir.

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

Mr. Heurtel and Ms. Price, in your proposal, you requested $50 million. Last week, representatives from the Canadian Football League asked for $12 million for a nationwide celebration. Could that money come from festival funding? The CFL representatives did not have an answer. If the CFL were to submit a request for $12 million that were to come out of the $50 million, it would affect your other requests, would it not?

[David Heurtel]

You want to know what would happen if $12 million were given to the Canadian Football League?

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

If the Canadian Football League submits a request for $12 million and that money comes out of your $50 million, you would not have a lot left.

[David Heurtel]

I would support that if all the money were to go to the Montreal Alouettes.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha!

[David Heurtel]

Forgive me, Mr. Chair, but I could not resist the chance to make a joke. Remember that I work for the Just for Laughs Festival.

In all seriousness, though, I think they are two completely separate issues. We are talking about a $50-million fund that the government has already created in the past two years. We want it to be renewed, to be made permanent. This fund could help foster wealth and attract foreign dollars to Canada. The money could generate more jobs in a sector that has already been proven to benefit tourism and that has the potential to benefit other industries if our partnership with the federal government were restored to previous levels.

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

The people at the Canadian Football League could always argue that they are going to attract people from abroad. That aspect is quite easy to sell.

Do your members get together and decide to submit a request? Are you making another request because the coalition got together to decide who would do it? Is it open to everyone?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Please keep your answer brief.

[David Heurtel]

As far as the request goes, we try to bring together a number of different stakeholders who generate significant economic benefits for the tourism industry in the area of major international events.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

Monsieur Carrier, s'il vous plaît.