Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2010

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You represent a number of worthwhile organizations. Unfortunately, however, we must focus on certain groups because of time restrictions. That is why I will pick up on the questions already put by my colleagues and address the representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

In your document, you reiterate that the throne speech clearly states that we are a bilingual country. It is all well and good to be bilingual, but we understand the necessity of having a federation with a budget to deliver services to Canada's French-speaking minority.

Earlier, I heard you tell my colleague, Mr. Mulcair, that your budget was very useful in providing the services you do to your community, services that the government would have to provide if you did not exist.

Your services could be improved dramatically given that you replace the government. I do not want to get into the whole issue of the government's responsibility to ensure that the country is bilingual, but you replace the government in terms of the services it is supposed to provide to this community. Therefore, you are filling a need. But it is shameful that you replace the government, and yet you have to ask it for money in order to make up for its failure to fulfil its duty of national bilingualism.

Am I right to think that way?

[Marie-France Kenny]

We see ourselves as key partners of the government. My first concern is that you are saying we did not fully respect the Official Languages Act because we were the ones delivering the services in French to the communities. In fact, for 40 years now, there have been compliance issues when it comes to the Official Languages Act, but we are a key partner of the government.

Is the government required to do everything that needs to be done? We see it in some other sectors, health, especially. We see the government working with people, something it talked about in its throne speech, by the way. It works with people on the ground who understand the realities, such as our organizations. We are there, on the ground, and we work with the communities scattered all over the country. We may be a supplier or a key partner of the government. It is not up to us to meet the obligations under the Official Languages Act, but the government, despite the investments.

I should also mention that the investments in our communities need to be maintained and enhanced, as they did not even keep pace with the rate of inflation. So we are simply treading water, but it is clear that if the government were to provide the services itself, it would have to spend a lot more money.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I do not see your funding request in the document we have here. Are you asking for an increase, a set amount? Surely, one of your objectives must be to promote the French language throughout Canada. Your needs must be rather significant given that we have a long way to go. You do not mention any specific requests; all you seem to say is that you exist and that you need assistance.

[Marie-France Kenny]

There are investments through the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. There are also multi-year investments. Today, we are asking the government to maintain its current investments and to increase funding to at least keep pace with the rate of inflation.

For more than 10 years, our operating budgets have not increased. We are inevitably talking about an increase.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have a question for the representatives of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.

When you talk about Telefilm Canada, you do not mention the fact—and this ties back to the previous questions—that 95% of the country's French-speaking population lives in Quebec. You do not ask for funding specifically for Quebec, which is in desperate need of money to produce films, given that Quebec's cultural production is much higher when it comes to films.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Waddell, make a very brief response, please.

[Stephen Waddell]

Thank you, Mr. Carrier, for that question.

The situation in Quebec is clearly difficult. I leave it to our Quebec francophone colleagues to petition you on that matter.

The situation with English language feature film is even more desperate. Just to quote a quick statistic, over 99% of films shown in Canada in the English language are non-Canadian feature films. We have a very desperate situation in English Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci.

We'll go to Monsieur Généreux, s'il vous plaît.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses. I will ask my questions quickly.

Ms. Kenny, I am also on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and we have met before in that context. By the way, we will soon be submitting a report on official language minority communities.

Earlier, you mentioned the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. Based on your analysis, where would you say things currently stand with the roadmap?

[Marie-France Kenny]

We did not perform a detailed analysis. We talked about the roadmap before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to say that we could still not get a clear idea of where the investments were, that the money was coming in dribs and drabs. We knew money was being spent, but we did not have a clear understanding of how, where or when the money was being used.

Our position is that the investments are necessary and need to be maintained. The national community as a whole developed a community strategic plan in which it set out priorities. I think that, first of all, the midterm report should take all those things into consideration, examine where the investments are and then determine whether they are adequate or need to be increased.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Fine, thank you.

I also want to commend you on your document, as it is quite nice. I am a printer, so I know what it cost.

Ms. Shamian, I want to know whether you were able to put a dollar value on all the requests listed in your brief. Are you able to make some sort of estimate, be it a tax credit or other measure, to help caregivers?

[Dr. Judith Shamian]

I think some of the tax credits are in the realm of $75 million to $80 million.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Is that all?

[Dr. Judith Shamian]

That's part of it. There are other components. That's why we're recommending that we probably need an expert group to sit down to work with us and figure out some of those things together.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Fine.

Last week, in Quebec, the minister launched a new program for caregivers. It is being tested in four regions. Are you familiar with that program?

[Dr. Judith Shamian]

I am not. But I know that Quebec has been very progressive in supporting caregivers, and I will definitely follow up on that program. Thank you for telling me about it.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Heurtel, it is odd, but I have been working in Ottawa for 11 months now, and it seems that there is some confusion around the word “temporary”. Our government put $50 million on the table for all celebrations and festivals in Canada to help them get through the crisis. And I think the government made it clear that the aid was temporary.

Obviously, if I were to turn to Ms. Zatylny and give her $1 billion this year, and then if she were to come back to me in two years' time saying she depended on that money, it would be expected—inevitably, she would have expanded her activities and generated significant creativity and economic benefits.

We are going to be accused of cutting $50 million, when the reality is that is not what we are doing, because the funds were already there before. We added $50 million to that, with the stipulation that it was temporary. Where do you stand on that? I know there were a lot of problems when it came time to make certain decisions, especially this year. Can you answer that quickly?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[David Heurtel]

First of all, the Canadian Festivals Coalition did not accuse anyone of anything regarding the cancellation of the marquee tourism events program. We were very clear on the fact that it was temporary.

But what we are saying is this: before the economic crisis, we were trying to raise the profile of our industry, we wanted to be on equal footing with Canada's other major industries, such as the aerospace and pharmaceutical sectors. Those industries receive continuous support at an increased level from the Canadian government. And that is why we are here before you today, now that the storm has passed, trying to get continuous support at an increased level for our industry in order to enhance our economic returns and raise our international profile.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Bennett, please, for five minutes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you very much.

Both Rx&D and BIOTECanada suggested that there be stable funding for vaccines in Canada. Do you want to say a bit more about that? Other than the prevention side, which we all understand, can you explain what the $100 million actually does and why it's good for the federal government to do it? As well, do you know if you're getting that money for next year?

[Peter Brenders]

I'll take a first stab at that. I'll leave it to my colleagues there as well.

Do we know what's happening next year? No, we don't, but what we do know that is good for Canadians is that the $100 million through the national immunization strategy goes to vaccines and goes to treat children. We know it goes to prevent future diseases and other disabling conditions, from pneumococcal to HPV, or any number of other advances that are out there. The value in this one is showing the federal leadership, which then plays down to the provinces to engage them in terms of delivering local programs.

[Rob Livingston]

In terms of the impact, I think probably the biggest impact we can demonstrate occurred after the program was initiated in 2003. At that time there were, I believe, four pediatric vaccines that had been approved and were on the market. What happens is that the federal government approves them; then they go through a review process through the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, and then it's up to the provinces to adopt them into their immunization schedules.

What we saw with that money in 2003 was that the provinces put them into their schedules at a much quicker rate than they had previously. We think that demonstrated benefits. We are now starting to see the health benefits. We are also starting to see the health benefits of the HPV vaccination program, which was announced in 2007, with a reduction in various symptoms such as genital warts.

We think those are the kinds of things that come of that investment.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I would like to go now to ACTRA.

If it's only 1% of Canadian English films on the screens, what is the number in Quebec?

[Stephen Waddell]

I was just trying to find out exactly, but it's over 5%, Ms. Bennett.