Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're very pleased to have you here today.

We'll start the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study related to Canadian museums.

We welcome here today our witnesses from the Canadian Railroad Historical Association, Stephen Cheasley, Marie-Claude Reid, and Daniel Laurendeau.

Is someone going to be the spokesperson?

[Stephen Cheasley, President, Exporail, Canadian Railway Museum, Canadian Railroad Historical Association]

I will be the spokesperson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee, for inviting us to come before you today.

My name is Stephen Cheasley. I am president of the Canadian Railroad Historical Association.

I am here today with Exporail's Director General, Ms. Marie-Claude Reid, and our administrator and secretary, Mr. Daniel Laurendeau.

I would like to start off by talking about the Canadian Railroad Historical Association. It is a non-profit, federally incorporated organization founded in 1932 that owns and operates Exporail, the Canadian Railway Museum, in Delson—Saint-Constant, Quebec. The CRHA has 1,000 members and 14 divisions across Canada and publishes a bimonthly magazine on railway history, Canadian Rail--which I have a copy of here--and publishes books as well. We have just published a recent book on Ottawa streetcars, which I thought was appropriate.

Exporail, established in 1961, is Canada's largest railway museum and is considered by museum experts as one of the best railway museums in the world. Exporail is situated on 50 acres of land containing three display buildings, with a total of 125,000 square feet of exhibition space, a 25,000-square-foot reserve building, an 1882 country station, a restoration shop, and a turntable. Exporail features rides on a one-mile tramway line, a two-mile railway line, and an outdoor miniature railway. It also has an extensive HO-gauge model railway installation.

The facility also includes a library, an archives centre, temporary exhibit spaces, a multi-purpose hall, and food and retail spaces. It is designed to appeal to Canadians of all ages.

The Exporail collection is composed of 168 locomotives, tramways, and other pieces of rolling stock, and over 250,000 small objects, models, books, plans, photographs, pieces of railway art, and archival items.

In a recent report by Lord Cultural Resources Planning & Management Inc., a leading museum consulting firm, the collection is deemed to be a national collection rated as world-class. Indeed, in 1978 the museum was designated as a specialized museum for railways by the federal government, a role it continues to fulfill today.

The Exporail collection has items from the first railway in Canada, the Champlain and Saint Lawrence Railroad, built in 1836 between La Prairie and Saint-Jean, Quebec, and from Canada's entire subsequent railway history up to the prototype of a hybrid switching locomotive recently invented in Canada. It is the most comprehensive collection of Canadian railway historical material in existence.

Since the design of Exporail permits pieces of rolling stock to be moved on their own wheels, some of the rolling stock from the Exporail collection is lent from time to time to other railway museums across Canada for exhibition. In addition, travelling displays about Canadian railways are prepared and sent to other museums. The Revelstoke Railway Museum currently houses CPR steam locomotive 5468 on loan from the Exporail collection and has recently shown our travelling exhibit on women in the railways.

For the last 170 years railways have played an important role in the development of this vast country. Due to the size of the country, Canadians have had to develop world-class transportation systems, and today Canadian railroads are certainly world-class. Indeed, two years ago the U.S. magazine Trains named CN as the number one railroad in the world.

The Canadian railways, with their twin ribbons of steel, opened Canada for settlement and framed its infrastructure. Many towns and cities in Canada owe their origin to the coming of the railway. Many a Canadian family has a proud railroader in its background. The railways were and still are the lifeblood of Canada, moving a large percentage of Canada's goods and materials. Indeed, I was told last week by the Railway Association of Canada that no fewer than 63 million passengers were moved by trains last year, and over 65% of the material that moved by surface was moved by trains.

From a political standpoint, the completion of the CPR on November 7, 1885, provided the basis for the Canadian Confederation as we know it today. Canada, more than most countries, was dependent on the development of the railways for its very existence, and that is why it is so important that this part of Canada's heritage be properly preserved for future generations. Railway history is a major part of the story of Canada, and it must be cherished, nurtured, and retold to all Canadians.

Here's a quote from the Lord report:

Exporail is the only museum in Canada that tells this story in any depth and in fact is the only one with the mandate, expertise, and collection base to do so effectively. This outstanding Canadian collection is a unique resource that offers Canadians the opportunity to tell this story with the original material culture that made it possible.

However, the Canadian railways are always improving and changing with the result that preserving the railway heritage presents the ongoing challenge of rescuing items of historical importance before they are lost to the scrapyard or to other countries like the U.S.

The non-rolling-stock part of the collection is now housed in adequate environmental conditions, thanks to our new $12 million pavilion. One-third of the rolling stock in our collection, as distinct from the non-rolling stock, is now in adequate environmental conditions. One-third of the rolling stock is sheltered from the elements, but not in adequate environmental conditions, and the remaining third is totally exposed to the elements. The items of rolling stock that are not in adequate environmental conditions or are totally exposed to the elements are slowly but surely deteriorating, and will be lost if not properly conserved. This matter is urgent.

Railway rolling stock, by its nature, is very big, but also very fragile and requires big buildings to house it, with sophisticated environmental systems to protect the items from deterioration. Due to these requirements, such buildings are costly to construct and operate.

In addition to the Exporail collection, there are some other historically significant items of rolling stock scattered among other railway museums across Canada, but very few are well conserved, due to the lack of financial resources.

In England and Europe, most national railway museums and their collections are funded entirely by national governments. The railway museum considered to be the best in the world is located in York, England, and is entirely funded by the British government. Moreover, admission is free, as in all the state museums in England under the new admissions policy introduced in 2000. The National Railway Museum in York has over 850,000 visitors per year. Steamtown in the United States is funded by the U.S. federal government through the National Parks Service, which operates that museum. The Danish Railway Museum in Odense is owned and operated by the Danish State Railways, and the Swedish Railway Museum in Galve is operated by Sweden's state authority for railways.

Over the past 45 years, Exporail has received capital grants for certain infrastructure and project grants from the museum assistance program of the federal government, but no operating grants for the preservation, conservation, and interpretation of this important Canadian collection. The existing federal policy is not to provide operating grants to non-federal government museums. As a result, Exporail's operating funds have been largely self-generated, with additional support for the last 27 years from operating grants from the Quebec government.

In essence, for 45 years Exporail has played the role of Canada's national railway museum with operating support from the railway industry, the Quebec government, local municipalities and private companies and individuals, but not from the federal government. In reality, Exporail, the Canadian Railway Museum, has been a national public-private partnership, which owns and operates the national railway collection, but without the national level of government as a full participant.

A public-private partnership is a cost efficient and effective way for the federal government to assure all Canadians that their Canadian railway heritage is being properly preserved and conserved for future generations of Canadians.

In contrast, the federal government now fully funds, through the existing national museums, institutions dedicated to aviation, agriculture, nature, mail, science and civilization. Surely the heritage of the Canadian railways, railways that built and are still building this great country of ours, deserves equal treatment.

We would now like to make two recommendations. The first recommendation is that the federal government should acknowledge and assume its responsibility to provide adequate funding for the preservation, conservation, interpretation and display of Canada's proud railway heritage. Secondly, the federal government should become a full partner in Exporail's national public-private partnership as soon as possible, and contribute funding for the preservation, conservation, interpretation and display of the Exporail collection in adequate environmental conditions for all to enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, that's the end of the statement we'd like to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Questions?

First of all, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Cheasley, Mr. Laurendeau, Madam Reid, for coming today.

This issue is one that is giving me a certain level of discomfort, because there's something that is not congruent in the museums' picture in Canada at the moment. We have, as you said, a war museum, a national art gallery, a science and technology museum, an aviation museum, an agricultural museum--national museums located here in Ottawa. And perhaps the greatest part of our heritage and history, the railway, doesn't figure in the picture; it seems to be off on the side.

I think you're right that Canadians somehow don't seem to be focusing on rail as an activity and as a piece of our history and culture, as we have on other things. Do you have any sense as to why that might be? We have an aviation museum, but we don't have a national rail museum. It just doesn't make sense to me. We have a great company--you mentioned CN; we're the best railway in the world. Our country was built on railways, and somehow the government hasn't built a national railway museum in Ottawa.

[Stephen Cheasley]

That may have been because in the fifties, when the railways were going through a major technological change, the governments of the day did not move to save any of this equipment. Our association moved and was able to save the equipment.

In the technological development of railways, from 1836 until 1870, Canada had a railway system that was.... The gauge was the same size as it is today, but in 1850 we thought we were going to be attacked by the U.S., so we changed the gauge and made it broad gauge. Then by 1870 we realized the U.S. was not going to do that, and it would be in our economic interest to put the gauge back together so we could trade back and forth. As a result, just about everything in the way of historic railway equipment was destroyed.

The next major change was in the 1950s, when steam was replaced by diesel and passenger cars were replaced and tramways were replaced. At that point the government didn't make any move. Maybe this was too early for the heritage movement; the heritage movement came later on. Our group, which had been started in 1932, had already saved a streetcar in 1950, and in 1955 we were able to save Sir William Van Horne's private railway car.

Sir William Van Horne's car was built in 1881, was used by Sir William Van Horne as his office, as his home for five years while he built the railway across Canada. In 1955 it ended up on a scrap line in Toronto, ready to be burned--a car that is mahogany inside and out. Fortunately, one of our members saw it, we were able to save it, and that is in the collection today. It's probably one of the most valuable pieces we have.

So to give you an answer, yes, we moved, and maybe the government felt that since we had moved and done it, they didn't have to do it.

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

I see.

You mentioned that you function through a public-private partnership, with some capital grants from the federal government in the past. And you get operating funding from the provincial government?

[Stephen Cheasley]

Yes, we do.

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

You seem satisfied with this formula. But again, I keep going back to the idea that it's a major part of our history, whereas we have an aviation museum that's I guess completely funded by the federal government. Our rail heritage centre, which is what you've created, which we would not have if you had not intervened in the 1950s and 1960s.... I don't understand why that has to rely on creative funding formulas from municipalities and provincial governments and industry.

Again, you seem to like that formula, but as a federal member of Parliament, it's almost scandalous to me that you have to scrounge around for funding from different sources when it's a national treasure--it just happens not to be in Ottawa, though it's not far from Ottawa.

Would you be open to the idea of the museum being integrated into the science and technology museum as a satellite museum, funded 100% by the federal government?

[Stephen Cheasley]

Yes. Our board has looked at various scenarios, and that has come up in the past. Certainly we'd be open to it.

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

I have one more comment, Mr. Chair.

I had the opportunity to visit the museum this summer, and I must attest to two facts. One, the main building is extraordinary. Secondly, the hangar where some of the rolling stock is being kept is totally inadequate. Maybe there's an assumption that because trains are big steel objects they don't deteriorate, but I saw some fascinating historical pieces of rail rolling stock that were falling apart. This is an urgent issue, and I think the federal government has to do something.

I was also told—and this disturbed me as much, if not more—that some of our finest pieces of rolling stock are being purchased because we cannot maintain or house them properly. Mr. Cheasley, can you confirm this? They are being purchased by wealthy individuals in the United States as luxury pleasure crafts, if you will.

I find it maddening that our heritage is being sold off piece by piece or is falling apart in inadequate facilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Allow me first to congratulate you on your commitment and contribution to preserving our cultural heritage. Although your work focuses on industrial artifacts, it should be remembered that industry is also part of our culture. It is through their culture, that nations make and leave their mark in humanity's collective conscience. Through your work, you make important contributions to this process.

You argued your case well in your presentation. I would like to know for how long you have been struggling with the vagaries of financial support.

[Marie-Claude Reid, Director General, Exporail, Canadian Railway Museum, Canadian Railroad Historical Association]

Aside from contributions from the private sector and capital grants, the Canadian railway museum received its first official funding in 1978 when it was recognized by a federal government program as being a specialized railway museum. Consequently, the museum was given financial support to help fulfill its mission to preserve our heritage. The fact that our collection was the most impressive, the largest, and the most important in Canada was one of the factors that led to our institution being accredited by the Québec Government Department of Culture and Communications. We have been receiving operating grants for 27 years, since 1979.

The financial support provided by this department has been, and continues to be, of assistance to the museum, as has that provided by the private sector and the association's 1 000 members from around Canada. Financial support has become all the more important over the pas seven or eight years as operational costs linked to new equipment have increased by 320% since 1979. In time gone by, our operating budget was far smaller, as exhibition halls were not heated in winter. This was not ideal for preserving our collection, but we were unable to receive more funding without developing capital investment projects. The association began work on capital investment projects in the 1970s with a view to housing the collection in a building that met museums standards.

Over the years several museums were renovated and new museums opened their doors, but the railway museum made little headway each year. Twenty years went by before we were able to get equipment that meets current standards. The board of directors put a great deal of effort into funding for premises that were up to standards, and had to rely exclusively on the museum's assistance program for developing interpretation projects.

Aside from funding from the Québec government, the railway museum had no access to support funding for its collections on a recurring basis.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Stephen Cheasley mentioned earlier that you received funding from the Québec government. Could you tell us how much you receive, and what percentage of your overall funding this amount constitutes?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Prior to the capital investment project, it constituted around 45% of the budget, although it now makes up a smaller share.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Could you give us an idea of how much funding a museum such as yours should receive from the federal government, bearing in mind the activities you undertake and the unquestionable importance of your institution for the community and for Québec and Canada as a whole?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Since its inception, 45 years ago, the association has been developing a partnership model. We believe that the association needs a budget of around $4.8 million and the federal government, as one of the partners, should contribute $1.2 million. Were the partnership formula any different for our particular project, the federal contribution would be modified accordingly to reflect its level of involvement. Obviously, this would need to be stable funding and would be used for upkeep and presentation. It would not be used to fund capital projects such as, for example, updating the fixtures and fittings in some of our old buildings or undertaking major restoration projects.

By way of example, restoring a railway artifact, such as a locomotive engine that has not suffered too much damage and only requires esthetic work, costs at least $30,000. We recently restored a tramway from the Montreal collection. We were able to restore it to an operational state, but it cost us $175,000, without factoring in the five years of work provided by some 20 volunteers. Restoration projects can require significant investment, yet, year-in year-out, we carry out one such project. However, our collection is so vast, that we really need to carry out work on a larger scale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. We've gone way over.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I heartily apologize for missing the first part of your presentation. I had a problem on my plane.

I'm very glad to be here and to speak with you.

My first question will probably be a catch-up that you've already answered. What programs do your museums access at the present time with the federal government?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

We have access to the Museums Assistance Program. The capital investment project was funded by the Economic Development Agency of Canada because, at that time, the Department of Canadian Heritage did not have the necessary funding available. Its partner organization, Canada Economic Development for the Montérégie region therefore provided funding for the capital investment project.

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

So this would be an English museums assistance program?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Yes, for the project, not for the--

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

Okay. I wanted to make sure I heard you correctly.

I was at John Baird's announcement last week when he announced the billion dollars worth of cuts. He specifically stated they were looking for programs that were inefficient, wasteful, and completely out of touch with the average Canadian. The Department of Heritage delivered the museums assistance program. I'm wondering, from your experience, do you see this program as out of touch or wasteful?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

No, quite the opposite. I have been the Director of our association for 14 years, during which time we have received funding for at least seven or eight projects. We have been able to restore our turn table and organize four Canada-wide travelling exhibitions, which allowed us to showcase our smaller artifacts across the country. The program also allowed us to computerize our collections in the early 1990s. We have, therefore, benefited from the program. Obviously, a category to support research and non travelling exhibitions would be helpful in terms of conservation. The museums assistance program is an extremely important program for museums of all shapes and sizes.

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

I'm wondering about that, because it was very specific in that announcement why certain programs were being cut and not others. Mr. Flaherty said, “Our government doesn't mind saying no to a bad idea.” So why do you think Heritage Canada decided to offer up the museums for a 50% cut over something else? Is there something in the program that you think wasn't working, in terms of how the federal government would have seen this program?