Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Marie-Claude Reid]

No, we are not. We are an accredited museum. So, so long as the Government of Quebec maintains a policy aimed at supporting museums, we will be receiving support, if we continue to offer the same level of professional service. But there is no guarantee that the program will be maintained in the future.

We are basing this on the fact that we have been receiving a certain amount since 1979. However, the amount that we receive does not meet our needs, specifically since the new building was erected. The electricity bill alone eats up the entire operating subsidy.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Let us get back to your financial needs. Let us assume that in an ideal world, Mr. Abbott or his Minister were to come to you with a blank cheque telling you that you will receive what you need on an annual basis, that the museum will be entirely funded by the federal government and that this amount would cover annual operating costs and capital investments. How much money would you ask for? Would 4 to $5 million per year be enough?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Yes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes, we're going to do that. Let the minutes show my tongue in my cheek.

First off, I presume that your financial statements are public documents. Is that correct?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Yes.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I wonder if I could request those statements for the last two or three years. If you could get them to the clerk, it would be exceptionally helpful to us on this question of funding.

I'd like to go back to page 51. I apologize to the people at Lord Cultural Resources Planning & Management, because I'm not familiar with them, but I have some serious questions about their recommendations to you.

I'm looking at where we're talking about fundraising, retail and food service preparations, marketing, public relations, publications, donations, education, programs and events. It goes from approximately $1 million to $1.1 million to $1.2 million in expenses. That's combining the two sets of numbers. Then I take a look at your actual revenue side, or at least the projected revenue side, of $546,000, $723,000, and $900,000. I'm keying on the places where they are advising you to spend money. If I ignore the management and special projects and administration, I don't understand the advice to your museum that for 2005-06 your fundraising would be an expense that would realize only $31,500; retail food and service operations, only $43,700; marketing, public relations, publications, and donations, also only very low amount; educational programs and events....

I have a lack of respect for this kind of advice to your museum. Those are discretionary amounts that they are suggesting you should be spending, and yet they're projecting that you're only going to cover 50¢ on the dollar for those activities. I just don't understand that. That would be like you're creating a hamburger for $10 and charging $5. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I must say, by comparison, I have taken a hard look at the numbers from the museums in my constituency, where a hamburger that's going to retail for $5 probably costs about $2. So I'm familiar with the difference between the cost of discretionary spending, those costs and the revenue side, and how to generate revenue. It appears to me that this company is advising the management to spend a dollar and hope for fifty cents back. I don't understand that.

[Stephen Cheasley]

First of all, Lord Management is one of the top museum consultants in the world, a Toronto-based corporation that has expanded worldwide. We brought them in because we wanted to have the proper advice.

I think what you're getting at is something that I also find strange, but in the museum world it seems to be this way. This is not running a business. As I said earlier, the museums in England would have no revenue to speak of coming in; they're free. But they have heavy costs to get people in the door. My understanding from them has been that you need to spend some money if you want to get people in. The object of the exercise in a museum is to get people to come and see it. So you have to spend money to get them in the door. You're absolutely right: when you look at the numbers it looks crazy—spending $1 million to bring in $500,000. As you say, it's spending a dollar to make fifty cents.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Maybe we could pay them $5 to come to the museum--that's the equivalent, isn't it? Of course, that's absolutely facetious.

[Stephen Cheasley]

Yes, but I'm just saying to you, you're asking where this comes from, and I'm not the expert who knows how museums work around the world, but certainly this is the advice we got from them. You're asking a question. We'd have to bring them in and ask them that question, but that seems to be the way it works.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Coming back to the question we're trying to grapple with, I would, and I'm sure the whole committee would, and I know the government would really appreciate receiving advice from people who are doing the job you're doing. Again, I want to be crystal clear: I think what you're doing is fabulous, and I think what the people around Canada are doing vis-à-vis museums and these kinds of displays is absolutely fabulous. That isn't the issue. The issue is how do we define in very specific, concrete, precise terms the responsibility of the federal government, and can we quantify that to establish a number?

I don't think it would make any difference which government it was, I would think even including the NDP, the request for $4 million is most probably never going to happen. Therefore we have to quantify it and we have to determine the standard by which the funds will be released, because they are taxpayers' dollars after all, and they want to know they're getting value for money and we're acting in an accountable manner. That's where your advice to us is really valuable.

[Stephen Cheasley]

I think the federal government has a scale from zero to 100. In certain areas the federal government has assumed 100% of the costs of museums, which we outline here. That decision was made in the past, and you live with it. These numbers here are nothing compared to the numbers it takes to run a major national museum.

To talk about quantifying the role of the federal government, the first way to quantify it is to share the costs with other people. I think everybody now wants to find new creative ways for the government to do things, how they can spend less and get more--this is the old saying.

I've had the privilege of being involved with a PPP, a public-private partnership, in Montreal for 18 years. We formed Montréal International 18 years ago, which is a public-private partnership with the federal government, the provincial government, the municipal government, and the public sector, and it has worked like a charm. We have two mandates: one is to get international organizations to set up their headquarters in Montreal--we now have 70 of them in Montreal; the other mandate is to get international investors to invest, and we've been doing very well with that.

It works fine, but every one of the governments is not picking up the whole cost of this, and it's also sharing with the private sector. This is the model. We think this is a good model for the federal government to carry out its obligation to look after the heritage, the railway heritage. It's cheap. I'm going to be blunt about it: it's a cheap way to get into this. Even paying $4 million a year is peanuts in comparison to what they're paying for the Canada Aviation Museum or anything else. So this is a relatively easy way for the federal government to get involved, preserve the railway heritage, and yet not have to pay a fortune to do it.

Now, quantifying that, the way it really works when you have a partnership is each year you sit down around the table and look at what you're going to do and what it's going to cost. In the Montréal International example, we do three-year contracts with the three levels of government. We sit down, we work out our budget, then they sign up and commit to put money in over a three-year period, then we'll look at the next three-year period and so on, and that's how that works. So nobody's getting stuck forever on a sum of money, and they sit around the table on the board so they can see what's going on; they get the reports. They know what's happening, so they know we're not spending money improperly or what have you.

It's a way to make sure people are getting value for their dollar, which is I think what the governments want to see these days. So that's our proposal. If we can work that out, bring in the governments and work that, I think we have a way to find a new way of dealing with the preservation of Canadian heritage, which keeps everybody involved. And it's not expensive; individually it's not expensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I know full well that museums cover off a much broader perspective. In my own riding, we have a museum in Cobalt. It's centred in the old railway station, but it covers off many other artifacts. In Englehart we have an old T&NO steam engine, and then in Cochrane we actually have the rail museum. Each of them covers off different aspects of it.

I would understand or imagine that your organizations have dealt with many aspects of museums policy. Have you been asked by previous governments for input into a museums policy?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

A request was made by the previous liberal government to all museums throughout the country, with respect to the Canadian museum policy. We were asked to fill out a type of questionnaire. Institutions could also submit briefs that officials would analyze in order to set up broad policy directions.

The groups were given a chance to peruse it and discuss it. Representatives from various sectors had to look into it. I personally only saw a number of statements as well as the questionnaire. I was not seated at the table working on it, but some of my colleagues were. What was done was very important and urgent, given the needs of museums.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes.

My colleague from the governing party has invited input on a new museums policy. Your budget is being cut now, but there's a promise that somewhere down the road there might be input into another vision.

There's a British politician who laid out for their government the twelve steps to doing nothing. You know, you begin discussions with stakeholders; then you send out someone for a report; then you get the initial report back; you have more meetings with stakeholders; then you do a draft report, followed by a revised report; you might even get it to committee; then, by the time you're committed to doing anything, you're into an election, so you're running on a promise; and then you go back to square one.

I'm wondering if we're now in step two of the twelve-step process when we've already gone through the twelve steps. From your perspective, do we know what we need in terms of a museums policy in Canada? Have we previously done the work? Can we simply look at the recommendations that have come forward and have the government say either yea or nay, as opposed to putting us through another indeterminate period like the one we've just been through?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

It is important for museums to have a museum policy soon. It had been expected for a number of years, and the work was at the point of fruition. We, representatives of rail museums, need a policy soon. I think any additional information could be integrated within the policy. I hope it will appear in the coming months. We, in the museum community believe it is urgent for the policy to be released and for financial backing to be made available as soon as possible. The current situation for museums is critical.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Just so I'm very clear, my quote from the translation of what you said earlier was that the funding envelope is and has been “utterly inadequate”. Now what you're telling me is that we need this policy quickly. There is a sense of urgency.

Is that the position you're bringing forth today?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Yes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow a bit on that, but before that I need to understand where we're going here, Mr. Chairman. This question may be directed to you more than to our witnesses.

Before we continue, there's a French expression, and I'm going to translate it literally “tripping on the flowers of the carpet”--s'enfarger dans les fleurs du tapis. I need to understand the framework, what it is we're doing here, because, indeed, the discussion we've just heard is very relevant.

We've had this exercise. The previous government had a policy. There was extensive consultation. The museums associations have even arrived at a number, un chiffre, that they would be very happy to see the museum assistance program grow to, yet I've heard that the government has said we're not going to have such a policy for at least a couple of years.

I need to know if this exercise is part of a framework in which we are going to drive policy, as a committee. I'm quite prepared to do that, but I need to know if indeed the government is prepared to cooperate. Maybe it's you or maybe it's Mr. Abbott who has to answer that. In fairness to us and to our witnesses and to the people who may be following these meetings, I think it's important that we have a sense of where we're going with this, because looking at the numbers, as we have been, may be a valid exercise in and of itself, but doing so may not be relevant to establishing a policy.

And we need to look at that policy. If we're going to be doing this exercise, my sense is that we need to look at criteria such as what the museum assistance program would involve, and whether it would involve national or regional collections. We need to know if we're talking about unique events or many, and how often we're prepared to duplicate them in the country if we're going to be supporting them. We need to talk about ownership and how it has an impact on support or non-support. Accreditation and all of the rest are the principles that have to be contained in a policy. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels here. I'm not fond of doing that or of using the twelve-step approach to doing nothing.

So that's a consideration I'm asking for, in order that we have a sense, if any, of where we're going with this.

I would also like to ask Ms. Reid a question.

or any of the gentlemen there.

Earlier, you said that you agree with the overall results of the consultations held with the museums associations of Canada.

Do you also agree with the figures which appear in the conclusion? If I am not mistaken, the associations said that they would be quite delighted to see the Museums Assistance Program receive funding in the order of $75 million annually.

[Marie-Claude Reid]

It is certain that the difference between $11 million and $75 million is very significant and it would go to all Canadian museums.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That was not my question, madame. I am asking you if you agree with the conclusion of this consultation, as well as the figure that was put forward by museum associations?