Sure, I'd be happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I share much of the same perspective as my colleagues testifying today.
My perspective on cultural tourism and industry, where there is social value being provided to a community, is that the sustainability of an organization to continue to provide that service or their typical function is really a function of tomorrow, not today. When I think about the programs that exist—and the government has been bold in assigning a great deal of taxpayers' money to the response to COVID-19—I think about what's next. Although we'll get past this pandemic, I really believe that the consumer patterns and behaviours are going to struggle for many, many more years.
I'd like to see some kind of incentive that puts the burden on us as organizations to provide products, initiatives, whatever, where we can provide new explanations for our industries in the future, things that will be generally tied to new markets, maybe evolving markets, ones that require less volume. Maybe organizations across the country are seeing it a little differently, but I believe that when you constrain an organization, you create an incredible amount of innovation.
When we fund things like wage subsidies and the student relief program, these are typically variable costs for organizations in cultural tourism. I'm very thankful for these relief opportunities, and we take full advantage of them, but I don't think we want to remove all of the constraints. I think we need to burden the organizations, such as the ones on this panel, to find new and innovative ways, and incent that through an ROI program, loans or whatever from the government. Allow us to create something new and different. It's not about our industry; it's about the consumer and what the consumer wants to buy.
I would leave the committee with one thought: We're going to look a heck of a lot different a couple of years from now. I don't think we want to struggle and fight to stay the same. That's my only concern, and that's what I'll leave you with.