THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 25, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met by videoconference this day at 2:30 p.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of all of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to today’s meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please their keep microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
[Translation]
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue.
If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD Service Desk with the technical assistance number provided.
[English]
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information. Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we will now begin with the official portion of our meeting as per our order of reference that the committee received from the Senate of Canada.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Boehm, Senator Dagenais, Senator M. Deacon, Senator Duncan, Senator Forest, Senator Galvez, Senator Klyne, Senator Loffreda, Senator Marshall, Senator Richards and Senator Smith.
[Translation]
Welcome to you all, and to the viewers across the country who may be watching on sencanada.ca
[English]
This afternoon, we continue our study of the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures, which was referred to this committee on May 4, 2021, by the Senate of Canada.
From the Canadian Cancer Society, we welcome Ms. Kelly Masotti, Vice President, Advocacy; and Mr. Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst. From the National Federation of Communications and Culture, we have Ms. Pascale St-Onge, President; and Mr. Claude Dorion, Managing Director, MCE Conseils. Finally, from the Coalition for Culture and Media, we welcome Ms. Marie-Christine Morin, Director General, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française; Ms. Nathalie Blais, Coordinator and Research Advisor for the Canadian Union of Public Employees; and Daniel Bernhard, Executive Director, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
Welcome to you all, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We will hear your opening remarks now.
Ms. Masotti, the floor is yours.
Kelly Masotti, Vice President, Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society: Thank you, chair, and good afternoon, senators. On behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee on Bill C-30. My name is Kelly Masotti, Vice President of Advocacy, and with me is Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst. The focus of our testimony today is the increase in tobacco taxes as outlined in Part 3 of the bill.
But before turning to tobacco, we would like to emphasize the importance of the much-needed provision in Bill C-30 to extend the employment insurance sickness benefit to support people facing the financial burden that comes with a cancer diagnosis. The extension from 15 to 26 weeks will have a positive impact on people living with cancer.
The budget also includes significant funding for palliative care and pediatric cancer research — important measures to benefit the cancer community.
For tobacco taxes, the Canadian Cancer Society strongly supports the increase of $4 per carton of 200 cigarettes that is included in Bill C-30, and we urge all senators to support this measure. Higher tobacco taxes are the most effective strategy to reduce smoking, especially among youth. Youth have less disposable income and may not yet be addicted, and thus are more responsive to price.
Higher tobacco taxes are win-win. Not only do they improve public health, but they also improve public revenue. The budget indicates that the tobacco tax increase will result in $2.1 billion in incremental revenue over five years.
Successive federal finance ministers have recognized the importance of higher tobacco taxes, including Michael Wilson, Paul Martin, Jim Flaherty and Bill Morneau. The strategy has worked to lower smoking rates in Canada, including youth smoking.
Canadians are also supportive. Canadians simply do not want kids to smoke. Given that the overwhelming majority of smokers begin as underage youth, preventing kids from ever starting is essential.
Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society: Honourable senators, tobacco taxation is an essential component of a comprehensive strategy to achieve the objective of under 5% tobacco use by 2035. The tobacco tax increase complements other measures, including the requirement for plain packaging, the ban on slim and super slim cigarettes targeting women and girls, enhanced programming initiatives and other measures.
Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, killing almost 48,000 Canadians each year, including about 30% of cancer deaths. Smoking causes not just lung cancer but also at least 16 different types of cancer, such as cancers of the mouth, throat, colon, pancreas and bladder. An enormous amount of work remains to be done.
For tobacco taxes, tobacco companies raise the issue of contraband, as they always do. However, tobacco companies have increased their own net-of-tax prices by $20.20 per carton over a seven-year period from 2014 to 2020 inclusive.
We’ve forwarded three graphs to you. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to refer to them after, but the first of these shows the federal tobacco taxes in red and the manufacturer prices without taxes in blue. It’s clear the manufacturer prices in blue have been going up an enormous amount. However, there is no indication that these manufacturer price increases have led to higher contraband. The tobacco industry has no credibility when it says government should not increase tobacco taxes, yet at the same time has massive price increases of its own.
These manufacturer price increases have resulted in $2 billion in additional revenue per year going to tobacco companies — revenue that should be going to government.
The second graph on the second page is taken from the 2019 Quebec budget, which shows that the level of contraband has been declining even with higher tobacco taxes, not to mention manufacturer price increases.
The budget also includes a tax on vaping products, effective in 2022, which is a measure that we also strongly support. Youth vaping has increased dramatically. The third graph shows that among Canadian high school students in Grades 10 through 12, vaping has tripled over four years, increasing from 9% in the 2014-15 school year to 15% in 2016-17 to 29% in 2018-19. E-cigarettes are incredibly inexpensive compared to conventional cigarettes. The tax on vaping products will help reduce youth vaping and will complement the separate, much-needed Health Canada regulations on e-cigarettes, including advertising restrictions and pending regulations on maximum nicotine levels and flavour restrictions.
we have made such progress at reducing youth vaping that we do not need a new generation of youth becoming addicted to nicotine through e-cigarettes, but that is exactly what is happening.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. We welcome any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Pascale St-Onge, President, Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture: Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, first allow me to thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify before you today about the reality of the members we represent.
The Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture represents about 6,000 people working in the media, in telecommunication and communication companies, and in arts and culture. We also work in close collaboration with six other unions in the area of culture. Together, we have more than 26,000 members.
Let me also introduce Claude Dorion. He is an economist and provides us with his expertise and advice on economic issues.
First of all, it is important to remind ourselves that artists and creators of arts and culture are among the worst affected by the current pandemic. The health crisis comes on top of the structural crisis that the disruption from the tech giants has been causing on our markets for more than a decade.
Canada’s most recent budget also recognized that arts, entertainment and leisure make up the sector that has suffered most from the pandemic in terms of job losses. The lack of a social safety net for self-employed cultural workers has highlighted how precarious and vulnerable the situation for artists and creators is. In 2019, before the pandemic, their average annual income did not reach $24,220, the low-income threshold for a single person in Quebec in 2017. In other words, without the CERB and the CRB, most of the artists, who saw their contracts cancelled because of the health measures, would have been penniless and unable to pay for their rent and food. We therefore applaud the extension of the CRB for a further period of 13 weeks.
However, it is essential that the government should have the leeway and the flexibility needed to extend the measure once more if it becomes necessary. The same applies to the wage subsidy program, which has also kept staff on the payroll in cultural and media organizations. It could also be critical to establish a measure similar to the CRB specifically for sectors that are still rocked by the pandemic beyond this new 13 week period. We already know that festivals and shows of all kinds will continue to operate at reduced capacity for a number of months and that their revenue from sponsorships and private funding has dropped dramatically.
When the FNCC and the cultural associations conducted a survey last December and January, 40% of our members were considering ending their activities in the arts and turning to a new career. For the vast majority, the explanation was their precarious situation and their inability to see an end to the health measures.
If we want our artists and creators to continue to produce the diversified Canadian culture that is so dear to us, it is our duty to establish a suitable social safety net for them in the coming months, in order to improve their socioeconomic conditions. We must also provide an economic framework that stabilizes their employers and supports the recovery of cultural organizations, even in limited circumstances, for another number of months.
The historically precarious balance between production income and the funding from public and private sources that most cultural organizations use is probably destroyed for years to come. In its budget, in fact, the government recognized the importance of arts and culture for the economic recovery of the country and its regions, with an announcement of an investment of more than $1 billion over three years for various aspects of cultural life in Canada. The government is thereby recognizing not only the great sacrifices made by cultural workers in the fight against COVID-19, but also that culture is essential for a vigorous economic recovery across Canada and for the richness of our society.
Cultural activities and the associated economic benefits are an intrinsic part of the vitality of the economy and the tourism in our city centres and our regions. Without major government investments, which are often complementary to those from the provinces, particularly Quebec, the community itself, which has been at an almost complete standstill for almost a year, would not have been able to provide a recovery for culture, particularly in the areas of the living arts and of festivals.
We reiterate the importance of ensuring that the money invested in various programs goes directly into the pockets of the artists and the creators. This should be maintained in the long term for all the programs. It can be done in different ways, such as the requirement for producers and distributors to sign contracts that, at a minimum, meet the conditions in the appropriate collective agreements. This would be part of the accountability required of them.
Moreover, statistics show that the average annual income of a self-employed worker in the performing arts and in productions does not reach the minimum income of $15 an hour that the federal government set as its target in this budget. The government must therefore ensure that the programs meet this national objective.
Furthermore, the federal government has been quite modest in its investments in advertising in our Canadian media. We all know that our media have seen a major drop in their advertising revenue since that market has migrated to the digital platforms of the tech giants. The pace of that trend has increased with the economic slowdown that the pandemic has caused.
Once more, we urge the government and its crown corporations to prioritize Canadian media in their advertising policies. This has a real impact, not only for the information media, but also for our radio and television broadcasters who count on that revenue to produce both news content and diverse, high-quality programs for Canadians.
I will conclude by stating that the cultural and media communities are counting on Bill C-10 being passed before the end of the current Parliament. This legislation is critical in order to establish fairness in our markets and therefore to ensure an economic recovery and a way out of these dual crises, the health crisis and the cultural crisis.
Thank you for listening. We are happy to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. The last presentation is divided into comments made by three different people, Ms. Blais, Mr. Bernhard and Ms. Morin.
The floor is yours, Ms. Blais.
[Translation]
Nathalie Blais, Coordinator, Coalition for Culture and the Media, and Research Advisor for the Canadian Union of Public Employees: Thank you for inviting us to testify as part of your study of Bill C-30, especially in terms of the GST/HST being applied to digital goods and services.
I am the coordinator of the Coalition for Culture and the Media, the CCM. The coalition brings together more than 40 organizations in the cultural and media sector, as well as citizens’ associations, representing hundreds of thousands of people throughout Canada, in French and in English.
Since it was formed in 2017, the CCM has been demanding more tax equity online. Specifically, we have twice participated in pre-budget consultations to ask the government to charge GST/HST on the taxable goods and services sold online by foreign companies, to put a stop to tax deductions for advertising costs paid by Canadian companies on foreign online media, and to ensure that foreign companies offering goods and services online in Canada pay their fair share of income tax.
Bill C-30 responds to our first request by making GST/HST payable on the intangible goods and taxable services sold online in Canada. This puts an end to an inexplicable competitive advantage granted years ago to foreign online companies that are among the most popular in the world. The CCM is satisfied that Canada is finally joining the 60 or so countries that have already re-established fairness in their taxation. We therefore urge you to pass this bill.
Daniel Bernhard, Executive Director, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Coalition for Culture and the Media: However, the government’s work is just beginning.
In fact, Bill C-30 represents only one small part of a series of adjustments in taxation and regulation that are needed to support the cultural and media sector in the digital age. One of the most urgent is the need to ensure that the costs incurred to buy advertising on most foreign digital services are no longer deductible under the Income Tax Act.
Section 19 of the act stipulates that advertising expenses incurred outside Canada are not deductible. However, the government does not apply this provision to advertising on foreign online platforms. This means that advertising purchases on Facebook and Google, for example, appear as income tax deductions for Canadian companies. This therefore becomes a subsidy that encourages our companies to buy advertising abroad.
In 2019, Facebook and Google collected about $7.4 billion in advertising revenue in Canada and 94% of that amount entitled them to an undeserved tax deduction. In the view of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, if that loophole were closed, the Government of Canada would garner additional tax revenue of $1.8 billion per year. That sum could be used to maintain local news content and to preserve jobs in our media.
Marie-Christine Morin, Director General, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, Coalition for Culture and the Media: In addition, the CCM looks favourably on the Canadian government’s decision to follow the example of France, Spain and the United Kingdom, who have been leaders among the member countries of the OECD in terms of taxing the income of the tech giants. As a result, Canada intends to implement a provisional 3% tax on the income of online multinationals as of January 2022, which finally sets a date for tax fairness to be re-established. The Department of Finance, however, has made it clear that the measure will not affect revenue from subscriptions to services like Netflix, which allow cultural content to be viewed online.
The CCM finds it difficult to explain the government’s decision to exclude subscription revenue from that tax, even temporarily. The CCM is aware that sharing data is not the main source of revenue for a company like Netflix. The fact remains that it uses information on Canadians to influence the content of its programming, to attract customers or build their loyalty, and therefore to increase its own revenue.
Subscription platforms work differently from companies funded by advertising, but they are still monetizing the data of Canadians. The CCM is therefore of the opinion that all tax measures designed to replace income tax for the tech giants, such as the 3% digital services tax, should equally apply to online subscription companies. The members of the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion to that effect on May 5. The Senate should be sensitive to the way in which this measure will be implemented.
We thank you for your attention and we are ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much to the witnesses for your comments and statements. I would like to tell senators that, for this meeting, you will have a maximum of five minutes each for the first round. The clerk will make a hand signal to show when the time is up. Before we move on to questions, I want to welcome Senator Moncion, who is the sponsor of Bill C-30.
Senator Marshall: I will start with questions to the Canadian Cancer Society, although I have questions for the other witnesses, also.
Thank you for outlining all the initiatives in the budget that support individuals with cancer. I have one simple question on the graph with the tobacco. Is it broken down by gender? The impression I have, when I do see people who smoke, is that it tends to be young women. Is there any information with regard to gender? How are those stats broken down by gender?
Mr. Cunningham: We are certainly very concerned about smoking by women and girls. At this point, about 15% of Canadians smoke. It is slightly more men than women. It is declining among women, but we are very concerned. With respect to vaping, there are very high rates of vaping among both boys and girls.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. It seems the young women I know who smoke do so to control their weight, which is a very odd reason to smoke.
Does the Canadian Cancer Society do any work with regard to cannabis? I read an article this morning that said university students are three times more likely to smoke legal marijuana than tobacco. Is this an area where you’ve done any work?
Mr. Cunningham: We do have some information on our website. There’s no doubt that in cannabis smoke, there are cancer-causing substances. A fundamental difference, though, is that most people who consume cannabis do it occasionally, whereas most people who smoke cigarettes are doing so daily and regularly, maybe a pack or day, or so on. Most people who smoke cannabis do so much less often. If you are smoking multiple cannabis cigarettes a day, generally there is a concern about the increased risks that you could have with respect to cancer.
Senator Marshall: The article I read this morning indicated that daily use is increasing among university students. That was the issue being raised.
There are a couple of items in Budget 2021 that provide funding to charitable organizations. I don’t know if you’ve had the opportunity to look at them. There’s a proposal there for a Social Finance Fund of $220 million and also an Investment Readiness Program for $50 million. Have you had an opportunity to look at those two initiatives and whether they would benefit the Canadian Cancer Society?
In addition to those two areas of funding, what really intrigued me was something that didn’t have any money attached to it. It is the launching of public consultations with charities to potentially increase the disbursement quota and update the tools at the Canada Revenue Agency’s disposal. Are you aware of that item in the budget? I’d like to hear your initial reaction to it.
Ms. Masotti: Senator, thank you for the question. Any increase in support for Canadian charities is a welcome measure in this federal budget. The charitable sector as a whole, like many other industries, has had a rough year. We’ve all adapted. Our organizations have changed the ways in which we work and the ways in which we’re trying to fundraise dollars. But the sector has seen a large hit, so any additional support is welcome.
For specific comments about what you’ve just mentioned, senator, we support the government’s announced $400 million to create a temporary community services recovery fund. It will help charities and non-profits adapt and modernize so that they can better support economic recovery efforts.
Canada’s charities are a vital part of the economy in contributing more than 8% of Canada’s GDP and employing more than 10% of working Canadians. Without the presence of charities supporting Canada and the world’s recovery, more and more vulnerable members of our society and world will be at risk, which, in turn, will worsen and deepen the impact of COVID.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I was interested in the public consultations that the government announced because they’re looking to increase the disbursement quota. I’m wondering about the reaction of the Canadian Cancer Society.
Ms. Masotti: I’ll have to get back to you with an answer to that specific question.
Senator Marshall: That’s fine. I have some questions for the cultural groups, Mr. Chair.
A number of initiatives were announced in the budget for cultural activities. It’s spread around. Some are being developed through regional development agencies, some through Canadian Heritage. There’s funding there for Destination Canada, but it looks like about 10 different pots of funding. I’d like to know your reaction. Would it not be preferable to have the funding in one or two areas rather than spread through 10 different areas?
[Translation]
Ms. St-Onge: I would actually answer your question by saying that it is not necessarily negative for certain programs to be targeted to the regions, for example, especially for festivals, which are often very local. So the government’s approach seems appropriate to us in responding to the different needs and in targeting the cultural sectors most affected by the pandemic. The envelope of $300 million for Canadian Heritage also seems appropriate to us. It could then be distributed to target other sectors that perhaps may not have been identified by other programs.
Senator Forest: My thanks to all the witnesses for sharing with us their experience and their knowledge of these very important matters.
My first question goes to Ms. St-Onge and is about journalism. The information sector has been seeing a brutal drop in its advertising revenue for 10 years, and the pandemic has not helped. In my region of Est-du-Québec, in the Bas-Saint-Laurent, we — as this will affect our chair too — have recently learned that station CKRT, which serves Rivière-du-Loup, Kamouraska, Témiscouata, Charlevoix and northern New Brunswick, will be closing on August 31. I know that this is partly linked to the withdrawal of Radio-Canada, but the situation was made worse because of the financial crisis in the industry. Are the existing programs doing a good job as currently provided? You were talking about broadening the scope of the tax credit; can you give us more details about that initiative?
Ms. St-Onge: You are talking about a regional radio station and, indeed, no current subsidies or programs support the production of news content or radio stations. That is why, in our brief, we asked for the tax credit to be extended to newsrooms in radio and television stations, because the drop in advertising revenue affects national media as much as local, regional or community media. This explains why it is critical for the federal government to do more advertising itself, because it is investing a lot to advertise on foreign digital platforms. In our view, however, those funds — we are talking about public funds, after all — should be invested as a priority in Canadian media, which are having difficulty finding their place in digital markets at the moment.
Senator Forest: Even so, it is a regional, even interprovincial, radio station, because it covers northern New Brunswick, Charlevoix, Témiscouata and Kamouraska. This is a very important factor.
I am somewhat disappointed by the withdrawal of Radio-Canada, our public broadcaster, our public institution.
The fight against misinformation concerns me a great deal. In your pre-budget recommendations, you had an interesting proposal, and your advice was to set up a financial support plan to fight misinformation. That sort of program can be very appropriate, considering everything that’s possible, especially with the new social media and misinformation. The pandemic has reminded us that reliable information is essential; we are bombarded with information from right, left and centre, and it’s hard to tell the good from the bad. In my opinion, the crucial role that the media should play, without becoming complacent, is to provide an objective reading of the facts and the news. What could such a program look like, as you suggested in your pre-budget consultation?
Ms. St-Onge: It could be done on several levels. First, some media outlets have developed expertise in fighting misinformation. Investigative journalism seeks to analyze the information circulating to distinguish between true information and false information. The programs could be directly for media outlets that have investigative teams and are interested in this type of journalism. There is also the whole issue of media literacy, digital media literacy, to help Canadians get their heads around it all.
That could be done through education programs in schools, but we really need a strategy to combat misinformation. We saw how critical that can be to health amid the pandemic. In some situations, being able to distinguish between what is true and what is false can become a matter of life and death. It seems to us that this area needs to be developed in the coming years. Unfortunately, in the current budget, the avenue has not been pursued or considered.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. I have a number of questions. The first two will be about the employment insurance extensions for cancer care.
The Canadian Cancer Society shared the results of a 2021 Ipsos poll, which reported 84% support extending employment insurance to 50 weeks. In Bill C-30, the government is proposing to extend EI benefits from 15 to 26 weeks and estimates these changes will result in a little over 90,000 new claims and additional entitlement weeks of benefits added to 177,000 existing claims.
The government indicates that it doesn’t collect information about specific illnesses that Canadians are suffering from that force them to apply to EI. Do you have any estimates you can share with the committee on the proportion of EI applications that could be related solely to cancer? Do you have any data on the frequency and duration of EI benefits to Canadians who receive cancer treatment and apply for EI? And do you know what proportion the estimated 90,000 new claims will be for cancer-related illnesses?
Ms. Masotti: Thank you, senator, for the question. I will have to get back to you with the specifics on the proportion related solely to cancer. It’s a challenge getting some of the specific data when it does not need to be disclosed upon receiving that benefit.
Also, people can shift from benefit to benefit and that change is not necessarily tracked. A prime example is if someone was on maternity leave and then switched from maternity leave to needing EI and the sickness benefit. That’s not necessarily tracked, so I don’t have access to that data to then be able to tell you the proportion of cancer patients.
What I can tell you, and what I do know, is that the commitment from 15 to 26 weeks is a strong start, and we were happy to see it. We hope it will be extended further to better meet the needs of cancer types. We know that the average length of treatment in physical recovery for breast, colon and rectal cancers — three of the most commonly diagnosed cancers — exceeds that 26 weeks to 36, 37 and 47 weeks respectively. I will get back to you with more specifics on the proportion of cancer patients.
Senator Klyne: Thank you very much. I’ll continue along that EI regime. As it stands currently, before passing of this bill — according to the general non-pandemic EI regime — to qualify for the sickness benefits, insured claimants require approximately 600 insurable hours in the qualifying period for the 52-week period preceding their claim or since the beginning of their last claim, whichever is shorter.
Once all current 15 weeks have been used, claimants must work another 600 hours to qualify for more EI sickness benefits. On average, what’s the likelihood that someone trying to recover from cancer or subsequent cancer treatments will have the opportunity to work 600 hours if they exhaust their benefits? For someone recovering from cancer, are there additional costs incurred that would place greater financial strain as they receive EI?
Ms. Masotti: Thank you for that question. We know that generally speaking, Canadians who get diagnosed with cancer want to return to work. Cancer can be seen in many instances — not every — more as a chronic disease. People do want and need that time off to recover and be treated to then be able to return to the workforce. Any extension right now will be beneficial to people living with cancer and their family members. I’m not sure if that got at the specifics of your question.
Senator Klyne: Yes and no. I’m more concerned to know if, to requalify, cancer patients would even have the opportunity to work another 600 hours, on average, for the average cancer patient.
Ms. Masotti: Right. We need to see the system be as flexible as possible. We haven’t seen changes since the 1970s, so any flexibility now and any change to the system will be beneficial for people living with cancer. Any extra challenges cause, to your point, financial strain at a time when people don’t need to be worried about how they’re going to pay their bills. People should not be choosing between a paycheque and treatment, so any flexibility is a welcome change.
We see that in the extension of Bill C-20, which will be coming to the Senate again. That’s where we see the request for an extension of two weeks for bereavement, all part and parcel of these special benefits. Our organization would support any extension and flexibility, to your point. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Richards: I was going to ask a quick question about insurance compared to unemployment for cancer patients, but I’m going to yield my time today and let someone else ask their question. There are many witnesses and many people want to ask questions. Thank you very much.
Senator Boehm: My question is for Ms. Masotti or Mr. Cunningham. It’s following a bit on the line of what Senator Klyne was asking. This benefit, of course, is a good step in the right direction to 26 weeks. However, at another committee, your colleague Mr. Piazza indicated that basically 77% of cancer patients — survivors — took at least 41 weeks to recover.
Does it appear to you that there are people who are falling between the cracks, and is that somehow specific to age groups? Maybe that’s too much of a detailed question.
Is this something that perhaps — Senator Pate is not with us today — a guaranteed livable income could solve in the future so people would not fall between the cracks in terms of their recovery?
Ms. Masotti: That’s a very good point. I don’t think I will speak to comparing benefits, but I will use this as an opportunity to certainly agree with what my colleague Steven had said. We do know that 77% of benefit claimants that exhaust the 15 weeks don’t return to work immediately and of those, about three quarters took at least an additional 26 weeks off work.
Our starting point was looking at the compassionate caregiver benefits that were introduced in 2016 and passed in 2017, which extended benefits for caregivers from 15 up to 26 weeks. For the last number of years, we’ve been in a scenario where our caregivers actually have more time and coverage than patients themselves, and that’s not correct. We know, based on data, that cancer patients require more than the 15 weeks — at least 26 is a good start — and we will always look to see more flexibility and additional weeks moving forward.
Senator Boehm: Thank you for that. I have a question for Ms. St-Onge and Ms. Blais as well. From reports we have seen, we’ve known that our cultural sector has been in difficulty even before the pandemic. You said that in your remarks as well. Many artists have decided it’s not for them. They’ve changed and moved into other areas, or they’ve taken advantage of the emergency relief benefit — which, of course, is going to be wound down — but that doesn’t really help them. Some of the more established institutions have received support and probably will continue to.
In terms of the next generation of Canadian artists, whatever their medium is, how do you win them back? Do you have a strategy?
[Translation]
Ms. St-Onge: Yes, we actually need to question how our entire system is designed. It is very important to put artists and creation back at the centre of our cultural institutions and we must ensure that programs reach artists and promote better working conditions.
This seems to me to be a very interesting avenue. We could also be inspired by what is being done elsewhere, such as France, where there is a status called “intermittent du spectacle” (IDS), because the reality of an artist is navigating from project to project and spending long periods without income. Having an income replacement mechanism during those periods seems like an appealing idea, as Canada is planning to revise its employment insurance program. Self-employed people could be allowed access to EI, which would provide greater security for artists. Some people could therefore look forward to practising this beautiful profession as an artist in different fields with the hope of making a better living.
Senator Boehm: Ms. St-Onge, is there a system to identify artists who have left the field?
Ms. St-Onge: Right in the middle of the pandemic, we conducted an internal survey to assess how many of our members were considering leaving the profession or changing careers, and the numbers were staggering, more than 40% in some areas. We need to think about the working conditions of artists, as they are often thinking of changing careers because their situation is so precarious.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
[English]
My quick question for Ms. Blais is about journalism organizations that have to be part of a qualified Canadian journalism organization. The organization has to meet the criteria of the Income Tax Act. In an overview of media organizations that you may have taken, are there some that fall through the cracks because of this requirement and, as a result, do not benefit from the tax support for Canadian journalism?
[Translation]
Ms. Blais: The Coalition for Culture and Media itself does not have a position on this issue. We focus more on the digital impact. However, several of our organizations, such as the FNCC, have a strong position on this issue. We fully agree with what Ms. St-Onge explained earlier, when she said that the definition of “media” should be extended to broadcasting companies, which are also starting to be at risk, instead of just limiting the assistance to newspapers.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Ms. Blais.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the witnesses who have appeared before us today. My question is for the Canadian Cancer Society.
The Canadian Cancer Society representatives have specifically addressed the tobacco industry and its link to disease and your support for increased taxes. We’re all aware of the link between alcohol and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder as a disease. The Canadian Cancer Society also addresses the links to alcohol consumption and disease. Sin taxes, for lack of a better word, like tobacco and alcohol, are a fundamental part of federal-provincial-territorial budgets. You’ve praised the taxes on tobacco. Have you also been part of or made representations on taxes regarding alcohol?
Ms. Masotti: Thank you for your question. We have not to date. The Canadian Cancer Society certainly comments on lower levels of drinking and supports the update to Health Canada’s drinking guidelines that will be taking place in the next year, but to date, we have not commented on a specific sin tax for the alcohol industry.
Mr. Cunningham: We do have information on our website with respect to the relationship between cancer and alcohol, to provide that information to Canadians. In that sense, a lot of our efforts at this point are educational in nature.
Senator Duncan: Thank you for that. In Budget 2019, the federal government removed all federal restrictions on the interprovincial trade of alcohol. Budget 2021 allocates $21 million over three years to deal with interprovincial trade barriers and to advance work with willing partners on interprovincial trade. Does the Canadian Cancer Society, or perhaps the media representatives who have also addressed taxes, have any sort of interest in being one of the willing partners, as mentioned in the budget, to work on these interprovincial trade issues, specifically with alcohol or other issues?
Mr. Cunningham: Perhaps I could begin with respect to interprovincial trade issues because this was considered at the Supreme Court of Canada a couple of years ago. We did have some public comments at that time. For us, it’s essential that any structure have recognition of health and environmental legislation. Higher prices, whether it’s for tobacco or alcohol, would be part of that. If you have a government tax, it would be essential to have a structure. On tobacco, for example, if there are interprovincial shipments of cigarettes, which there are, it is essential to have the tax collected in the province of consumption.
The basic principle is that we must have environmental health measures respected, however we design the internal free market in Canada.
Senator Duncan: Do I take it then the Canadian Cancer Society would be one of the willing partners identified in working with the federal government and provincial-territorial partners to advance the work of the Internal Trade Secretariat?
Mr. Cunningham: We certainly would be very interested in engaging with the federal government on these important issues.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Welcome and thank you to our panel of witnesses for being here today. My question is for the Canadian Cancer Society. We all know that access to capital in these difficult times has been very difficult. You did mention it for the charitable social enterprises and the non-profit sector, but there is a positive. The Canada Small Business Financing Act now extends the small business loans to charitable social enterprises and the not-for-profit sector. The advantage is that the losses, to a great extent, to the lenders on these loans are guaranteed by the government, which should facilitate access to capital.
Do you feel you will be able to take advantage of these modifications? The charitable social enterprises you deal with, they must be having financial difficulty. Will they be able to take advantage of these modifications? Any comments are welcome on that. Thank you.
Ms. Masotti: Thank you for your question. I think any additional supports right now for the charitable sector are certainly supports the Canadian Cancer Society will look to use to support the work that we do. Many of the benefits that were initially introduced did not support the charitable sector, so we worked with government to ensure that it was expanded. Once they were, we were very grateful. We certainly use the benefits that have been introduced.
It depends on the size of the charity. For a charity like the Canadian Cancer Society, we actually fell through some of those cracks. We were too large to apply for some of the benefits that had been introduced by the government. There’s still work to be done for the sector as a whole — and I’m only speaking on behalf of health charities, not the sector as a whole — but I do believe that there is still a lot of room for additional support for the charitable sector.
Senator Loffreda: But on the fact that a large portion of the charities can apply for these small business loans that are government guaranteed, that’s a large positive, right? Do you see that need there currently? Or do you see them like many businesses, which at this point don’t need leverage but, rather, more help? Would they be able to use leverage? Would the modification help them?
Ms. Masotti: I think that modification would help certain sectors, for sure. I will get back to you with specifics for our own organization.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you very much. With respect to the national federation of communications, culture and media, there is the Aid to Publishers grant and the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. If they have aid, they are not allowed the tax credit.
[Translation]
Have many journalists or organizations received that assistance, and do you think the tax credit will help them?
Do you think the current budget is useful in promoting or encouraging the survival of organizations or of media across Canada?
Ms. St-Onge: I don’t have specific data on the number of companies that may have used either of those programs. The information that we do have on the payroll tax credit program is that the process is under way. It was introduced in Budget 2019, if I’m not mistaken. Newspaper companies are still experimenting with the process, and the approval process is very complicated. The program really is quite complex.
In the context of the pandemic — and perhaps Mr. Dorion can send you more information on this — we can check whether the companies that benefit from this program also use the wage subsidy program as part of the COVID-19 assistance programs. At this point, I don’t have any information on that, but we will get back to you later with the data.
Senator Loffreda: We have to make sure that we can help them and that they get all the help they need.
The Chair: Ms. St-Onge, please send us the information through the clerk, Ms. Fortin, by Monday, May 31. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith: My thanks to the witnesses who are here today. I have a question for Ms. St-Onge.
Independent artists, and artists in general, have had a very difficult time with the closures. The CERB played a very important role in supporting them, but we know that cities and provinces need to work together to coordinate when the provinces open. Ontario, in particular, operates differently than Quebec with respect to festivals.
You noted that the federal government promised to provide funding to the entertainment sector, but those activities cannot resume until everyone is vaccinated.
I just want to know whether you have conducted any comparisons with other countries. Have you had any luck with a program in Canada or in the provinces to reopen the festivals, because each province does things differently? Are you aware of any formula or program developed with a view to reopening festivals and supporting independent artists in Canada?
Ms. St-Onge: I have no comparative figures to illustrate where Canada stands in relation to other countries in its assistance for the performing arts, particularly festivals. I can’t answer that.
However, health measures will have a great impact on the ability of each province and region to hold major events. That is why most programs have been tailored to compensate for the total or partial closure of activities. We think that’s the most flexible approach.
Our concern is that several programs, such as the CRB or the wage subsidy, are scheduled to end this fall. If the health crisis is not resolved and the measures are not completely lifted—that is, if venues are not able to sell out—independent cultural workers and many organizations that have relied on these programs may find themselves in a void.
That is why, in the budget, the government is looking for the flexibility to extend those programs, and we think it is very important that they be able to do so.
Senator Smith: Is there ongoing coordination between your association, the Government of Canada and the provinces in order to provide feedback and reassurance to artists? I guess everyone knows that these programs will end and that we have to be prepared if there is a third or fourth wave. Your comments on that would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. St-Onge: Fortunately, so far, the federal government has been very receptive to our comments on all the programs, and many adjustments have been made along the way. We saw this with the CERB, for example, which was not quite tailored to cultural workers. Adjustments have been made and we are also working closely with the Quebec government on the various programs.
It must be said that the governments of Quebec and Canada have worked together in an exemplary fashion. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the other provinces. Right now, we feel that there is a desire between the two levels of government to complement each other, and that is a very good thing.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham, I have never seen so many seizures of contraband tobacco in Quebec as in the past month. In fact, last week, a tractor-trailer was intercepted in Rivière-Beaudette with 13,000 kilos of tobacco for organized crime.
When taxes are increased on legal cartons of cigarettes, I believe that this creates an opportunity for organized crime to increase their prices while remaining competitive. Don’t you think the government is on the wrong track and that another strategy should be adopted, instead of raising taxes on tobacco? Do you have any evidence on the impact of the price on those who smoke legal tobacco? Finally, do you really know how many people are turning to contraband tobacco because of the price?
Mr. Cunningham: Thank you for the question, Senator Dagenais.
Increasing the tax on tobacco is the most effective strategy to decrease consumption, especially among teenagers, who are usually less well off.
Yes, there is contraband in Canada, but data from the Quebec finance department in the 2019 budget showed that contraband is decreasing, although taxes are increasing and manufacturers’ prices are also increasing. So the connection is not with contraband and the level of tax, but with the enforcement strategy.
Quebec has made a lot of progress, and there are strategies to reduce contraband and increase taxes at the same time. In addition, tobacco manufacturers have also increased their own prices by $20 per carton. So compared to the $4 in the federal budget, they don’t have much credibility. They often talk about contraband, but they are raising their prices substantially, so they can’t really complain about contraband.
We think this is a very effective health strategy, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and we are very happy to see it in the budget.
Senator Dagenais: Do you have any data on how many people, especially young people, are turning to vaping? Is the price of legal cigarettes one of the reasons why young people are vaping?
Mr. Cunningham: The price of e-cigarettes, which is very low compared to cigarettes, is definitely an attractive factor for teenagers.
Why do they vape? Because it’s cheap. We must ensure that the taxes are high so that the price is high both for traditional cigarettes and for vaping products. That is why the tax on vaping is important. Several provinces have already introduced their own vaping tax, including Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Ontario government asked the federal government to introduce a tax on vaping and now we see what the federal government has done. The Alberta government is in the process of introducing such a tax as well. So we are seeing a trend. It is really important to reduce vaping among teenagers, and the tax is an important strategy to do so.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
Senator Galvez: My question is for the representatives from the National Federation of Communications and Culture, as well as the representatives from the Coalition for Culture and Media.
I could not agree more with the statement that culture is an essential part of our richness. I live in Quebec City and I am very aware of how precarious artists’ jobs are in the performing arts sector, but also in the film and theatre production sectors, because of the complete shutdown.
Earlier, we heard from other industry representatives who testified in support of the cultural industries and the tourism industry. For example, we heard from the Hotel Association of Canada that the government needs to give clear direction on reopening and how to get back to normal.
Here’s my question. I think there’s a sort of vicious circle; the government wants feedback from the sector and the sector wants the government to act. How do you think reopening must be done to help artists in the performing arts sector? What can the sector itself do to adapt to what may well become the norm, but also to other situations similar to the one we have experienced and that may still occur?
Ms. St-Onge: I can jump in. The performing arts sector definitely needs clear guidelines on reopening and on how to proceed.
To date, at least as far as the Quebec government is concerned, major programs have been targeted specifically to make up for losses at the box office, that is, the number of tickets not sold either because of complete closure due to health measures or because of losses at the box office.
In addition, we asked that the contracts of the artists, artisans and technicians who worked on those productions be honoured. That is the ideal approach. Clearly, if the pandemic continues or if there are others, the measures will have to be reviewed in the longer term, because, for the time being, these are actually emergency measures. I think that’s the preferred approach. We will have to give ourselves time to look at all the programs and how they’re structured to make sure that our arts stay alive.
I’m not sure whether my colleagues from the Coalition for Culture and Media would like to add anything.
Ms. Blais: Yes, having clear guidelines is a key point that we must keep in mind. For example, the audiovisual sector operates in different provinces, and I know things get very complicated when the provinces adopt very different measures. So some coordination could certainly help the situation.
[English]
Senator Galvez: My second question is for Mr. Cunningham. I’m surprised we are still talking about tobacco and increasing the taxes. I’m still surprised that the taxes are not as high as they should be to completely discourage the use of this noxious and toxic substance. I want to take advantage of your presence; I can see how the lobbying techniques of the tobacco industry have been imitated by other sectors. Take, for example, the pesticide or oil and gas sector. That is exactly the same planning. Can you tell me how this lobbying is surviving and how strong it is in Canada?
Mr. Cunningham: The tobacco companies do have a lot of resources. They lobby very actively through hired lobbyists and lawyers; they have public relations firms. They also give money to researchers, who then make written articles in the media, often not disclosing they have money directly or indirectly from tobacco companies. They often give money to other organizations, such as convenience store associations, because the public perceives convenience store associations as more credible than tobacco companies. So they may work through associations or give money to others.
For many years, they denied that smoking caused cancer or other diseases, that second-hand smoke was harmful or that nicotine was addictive. They continue today with misinformation by denying that plain packaging would work; denying that effective and larger health warnings would work; exaggerating contraband, because the more they talk about contraband, the more they believe it will discourage governments from increasing taxes.
They have a very comprehensive approach, and it’s up to us and our partner organizations to try to get that health message out.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you everybody for being here this afternoon. This is a very important conversation. We have heard some talk about smoking, vaping and taxes. I’m not sure I have heard this piece of data, but I do wonder about it. The Canadian Cancer Society talks about more and more Canadian youth being introduced to tobacco through vaping products. I don’t know that I have a sense of the numbers compared to youth smoking in the past. I’m trying to draw those comparisons. That’s the first part, if you can help me out with that.
Also, in this budget, the government announced it is implementing this tax on vaping products in 2022 with the introduction of a new excise duty framework. My question is touching on some of the tax conversations we’ve had so far. Should vaping products be taxed at the rate of traditional cigarettes? Would it be a deterrent for those looking to wean themselves off cigarettes if they were taxed? Lastly, has the Canadian Cancer Society been consulted on any of this work and thinking?
Mr. Cunningham: Certainly, we have participated in pre-budget consultations and made submissions to government and to Parliament with respect to that.
On the question of whether the tax rates should be the same for cigarettes and e-cigarettes, in a way, that is academic because the prices are so far apart at the moment. It’s not even close.
With respect to the trends in youth, right now the most recent Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey for the 2018-19 school year, for youth vaping, Grades 10 to 12 students, it was 29%; for smoking, it was 9%. So youth vaping is triple the rate of smoking.
If we go back to the survey 10 years earlier, before vaping was an issue, the smoking for that age group was around 22%. I would have to check, but the rate today of youth vaping is higher than smoking used to be. And a lot of it is because youth who have never smoked are starting with vaping. That’s tremendously concerning.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. I know that the Canadian Cancer Society applauded and acknowledged the government around the money — this is a different area of your work — and the nearly $300 million committed over six years to advanced palliative care.
Based on all the things you know about our age groups and demographics, what we’re learning, do you think the government is on the right path for this area, or do you think that palliative and hospice care services are headed toward a deeper crisis? We have talked to a number of palliative and long-term care folks over the last eight months.
Ms. Masotti: With respect to the money committed in this budget, CCS was pleased with the announcement to provide nearly $30 million over six years. The investment is intended to provide Canadians with better palliative and end-of-life care, including culturally sensitive care. We have long advocated for better access to affordable, high-quality care regardless of where people live and where they choose to receive their care.
To your point, as we see in an aging population, this issue is only going to become more concerning as time goes on. We will monitor this issue. It is one of our top priorities. We work on a regular basis with Health Canada and at the provincial level to ensure that Canadians will receive the best palliative care available to them at the place where they would like to receive it.
Senator M. Deacon: To our friends here today that represent culture and the media, you have heard from all of us, and we have Senator Patricia Bovey who is passionate about keeping us well in tune with the impact on the pandemic and our times with all genres and all aspects of culture and the arts.
We know some of the losses, struggles and some of the data, but as we move forward, are there shifts you are seeing that might have a significant and lasting effect on Canada’s cultural and media landscape? If so, are these being addressed through our budget implementation act?
[Translation]
Ms. St-Onge: I think there is still a lot of uncertainty about the long-term effects. First, as venues reopen or festivals resume, will the necessary workforce, whether in the box office, the ushers, the bartenders, and for all the logistics involved in running festivals, still be there to support the recovery? Some of those people have looked for other jobs because of the pandemic. That’s one of the many questions we have. Will the impact last for a long time?
Second, in the budget of the Council for the Arts or of Telefilm, money has been allocated to creation, to everything that comes before the shows or festivals. So that creation period is much needed support for artists, if we want to ensure that the sector bounces back with new productions and new creations. I’ll turn the floor over to my colleague from the Coalition for Culture and Media.
Ms. Blais: I would like to add that the Coalition for Culture and Media is of the opinion that digital technology continues to be a great destabilizer of the culture and media industry. The pandemic has only accelerated the dismantling of the industry. For example, we can see that Netflix has gained 34% more subscribers in 2020 alone, and this is happening all over the world, including in Canada. In the budget, we would have liked to see no more tax deductions given to Canadian companies for online advertising purchased abroad. Mr. Bernhard, would you like to comment on that?
[English]
Mr. Bernhard: Nathalie’s point is entirely correct. A lot of this conversation we have had today is about how the government can support people in a temporary capacity as a result of the pandemic, but also other spending measures.
Let’s not forget where we are bleeding. The media, being a very important industry for our democracy but also for shedding light and circulating all these stories from cancer to other important situations happening in Canada, is dying because the advertising is drying up. Advertising is not dead as a business, far from it. It is simply the case that advertising dollars are going to companies like Google and Facebook that produce none of the content and being diverted away from the companies that make all of the content but can’t get paid for it.
This distortion in the advertising market is man-made, and it is encouraged, facilitated and pumped up by government policies such as allowing for the deduction of these ads in contravention of long-standing Canadian tax law.
We are talking about how we can support the cure, but we are forgetting we are pumping up the plague with almost $2 billion of taxpayer money every year that is going to this form of subsidy to help Google and Facebook do what? To prolong the pandemic, spread misinformation and to copy the big tobacco lobbying and public relations playbook, as one of the senators mentioned earlier.
The Chair: I will ask the sponsor of the bill, Senator Moncion, if she has a question.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Yes, I have a question about what was just discussed. I think it was Ms. St-Onge who talked about the digital services tax and the current temporary measure, the 3% tax. Right now, the OECD countries are in discussions to coordinate taxes internationally and the provinces are involved in those discussions. This will be discussed at the next federal-provincial meeting. I would like you to go back to that and tell us, in terms of all the goods or services, which ones should be included in the taxation but aren’t now. You named a few, but could you comment on that?
Ms. St-Onge: My colleague from the coalition brought this up, but it was also mentioned in the brief that we tabled as part of the pre-budget consultations.
Clearly, the discussions with the OECD are fundamental in finding international tax measures that will be upheld, in order to avoid tax havens again. So the discussions are fundamental. In fact, the 3% tax is already in place in other countries. It makes a lot of sense for Canada to move forward, even before the discussions are completed. However, the threshold for determining who will have to pay the 3% tax seems very high in terms of revenue. I can’t remember the exact number, but you have to earn a lot of money for the measure to apply to you. Also, if it doesn’t apply to subscription platforms such as Netflix or others, we are missing the goal of having these companies contribute to the Canadian tax system. I’ll let Ms. Morin make her comments.
Ms. Morin: To echo my colleague’s comments, the scope of this temporary tax must also extend to businesses that generate revenue through subscriptions. Right now, the scope of the tax is online markets, social media, targeted advertising based on user data or interactions. However, giants like Netflix are not included in that scope. That part certainly needs to be reviewed and expanded.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
For the second round, I have only five minutes left.
Could we agree that we just ask the questions and ask the witnesses to answer in writing before May 31? That is what we consider as the time frame for tabling our report.
Senator Marshall: Back to the public consultations on raising the disbursement quota for charities, I want to know if the Canadian Cancer Society thought that the existing quota was high enough.
My second question is, if it were higher, do you think it would increase support for charities? Those are my two questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Can you do that in writing?
Ms. Masotti: Yes. Thank you for the question. I’m happy to reply in writing.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: To put into perspective the support that the federal government is about to provide to the arts and culture sector, would it be possible to have an assessment of the amounts that will be invested by the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments?
I have a long history in the municipal world, and a lot of money was given to cultural events and activities.
So, without a Canada-wide survey, in the interest of having a realistic perspective rather than the absolute numbers, could you tell us the contribution of each level of government?
The Chair: Can you send us that information in writing, Ms. St-Onge and Ms. Morin? Thank you.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Regarding the proposed taxation on tobacco, can you please share with the committee how much of an impact these tax measures are expected to have on lowering lung cancer among Canadians? Have any estimates or calculations been done outlining the relationship between each new dollar of tobacco tax, relative to what’s expected for improvements in diagnoses of lung cancer?
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: My question is for any witnesses who can answer it.
We have already discussed this topic, and it is very important. My question is about the measures on the taxation of large foreign media and technology companies.
Could you tell us what you think about what is and what isn’t in this budget?
[English]
The Chair: To the witnesses, thank you very much for your comments and your answers. There’s no doubt that you were very informative. We certainly will be comparing what you have shared with us to the budget as we go forward. Do not hesitate if you want to add as we go ahead, prior to the budget. You can inform the committee directly through the clerk. We would appreciate that. Going forward, that enables us to prepare the path that the government is looking at, because we all have the same objective about transparency, accountability, reliability. We also need to be mindful of the taxpayers and all Canadians.
Although we need to monitor very closely the pandemic, hopefully we will enter a period of normalcy soon. Thank you very much. We appreciated your professionalism.
(The committee continued in camera.)