Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Marie-Claude Reid]

As an institution that uses the program, we fail to comprehend why it has been cut. Many Quebec museums have used it as, I believe, have many Canadian museums. I do not understand why it is said to be inefficient, but then I have not seen the critical reviews, if indeed any such studies were carried out. As museum professionals, we know that the program was used on a very regular basis.

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

With museums for railways, it must be fairly expensive at times, in terms of getting access to some very large artifacts. I'm wondering how you go about that. You talked about a public-private partnership. Would you look to a corporation to donate artifacts, and then have a write-down? Is there a level at which the provincial or federal governments would come to the table if you were adding to a typical collection? How would you go about that?

[Stephen Cheasley]

Our collection has been put together at basically no cost to us. We've been very fortunate that those in the railway industry not only supply the equipment, but move it for us at no charge and supply all the rail we require. They have been extremely generous over the 45-year period.

As I said in my presentation, we just received the prototype of the hybrid switching locomotive that was invented in Vancouver and is now going into use, and so forth. That came to us free of charge.

So on the collection side, it's generally us versus the scrapper. That's the situation. If they give it to us, then we will get it. Although as Mr. Scarpaleggia mentioned, you have people in the U.S. who come up and buy railway equipment because they want to convert them into private railway cars, and things like that. But the collection hasn't really cost us anything.

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

Is the cost in refurbishing them?

[Stephen Cheasley]

Yes, it costs to bring them up to exhibit standards. We spent nearly $175,000 on the tramway that was mentioned. Year in and year out, the members put in nearly 14,000 hours. We have 125 volunteers who are working there, so that's on top of the money. That's also been very helpful for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Abbott.

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

Thank you to the witnesses. We really value your participation here.

I have two outstanding railway exhibits museums in my constituency. I know they work very hard and are very well accepted. They do a tremendous job of not only telling the story and making us proud as Canadians, but also bringing tourists into the area to take a look at them. I sincerely credit you with the job you're doing.

At the conclusion of this I don't want to not enter into a debate, but I want to correct some of the figures and assumptions of Mr. Angus. I don't want to do that right now because I want to make sure we make productive time of our witnesses.

I notice that in item 7.4 on page 51 of the English brief you gave us, you talk about required government support of $3.6 million for each of 2005, 2006, and 2007. These figures are exceptionally valuable because they will help the government to quantify the ask, and it's very legitimate that you come here and ask.

Could you help us as a government and a committee, as we form a museums policy, to move forward from this point? I would like your input on the criteria we should be using for what the responsibility of the federal government should be. It's one thing to say it's a great big federal treasury, there's $200 billion there, so it's a big pot. That's true, but in order to access money from that pot, from a railway museum perspective, what is the most helpful criterion you could suggest to us as to what should be accessed? Secondly, on what basis.... In other words, quantify absolute dollars that you think would be of value.

[Stephen Cheasley]

That's a very interesting question. And by the way, we would certainly be pleased to be involved in any kind of development of a policy. As you can see, we've been in this business for a long time, for 75 years as of next year.

I think one of the things the committee should be aware of is that the word “railway museum” is a word that's used to cover a whole lot of things. You have locomotives in parks that have been there for 40 years and are rusting away, and yet there'll be a railway museum sign beside them. You have railway stations with a caboose, and maybe a car beside it, called a railway museum. You have what they call tourist lines, where people get together and have a locomotive and run it up and down a line, and that would be called a railway museum. Then you have museums like the two in your riding—and this one—which in fact, in my view, are museums, in the sense that they are preserving, conserving, displaying and interpreting, and which have archives and what you would call a normal museum look about them.

That takes you into a very interesting debate, because a lot of people across Canada will say our particular small station should be financed, and so on. Then you have to back up into looking at what is in the national interest, what is nationally significant, and what you should be saving. I'm told there are 250 cabooses saved in the province of Alberta alone. I don't think we need to worry too much about the preservation of cabooses, because that's been taken care of.

So you have to develop what is important for our national heritage, and then decide where that's going to be displayed and how that's going to be done. It needs long-term protection. You've seen it, and it makes you want to cry, because back in the sixties, when they changed over from steam engines to diesel, there were tons of steam engines that went out into parks, and they're mainly gone today because they just rusted away. That's how fragile these things are. So you have to put them in a proper environmental condition.

I don't know if that helps you or not, but certainly we'd be glad to work with you to develop a policy.

I think those are your two big elements.

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

If we could quantify this, you mentioned that if it doesn't go to the scrapyard you can get your hands on it. Do you have a written description? I know the Science and Technology Museum has written criteria they have before they will take a bicycle, a washing machine, or whatever it is they're looking at, so they can make an objective decision. Do you have those?

[Stephen Cheasley]

Yes. We have a collections committee, which has been in place for many years. They go ahead and look at the existing items that are on the railways to identify which ones are worthy of being saved. That is written up and debated, and then a recommendation comes to our board. At that point the board will approve it, and if it gets approved then it goes onto the list. We normally identify that to the railways.

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

Should federal planning be involved? It's not just the acquisition cost, but it's also the recovery cost of the asset you've acquired. So there is a capital cost there, but there is also an operating cost. In your judgment, which part of that...or should it be both of those aspects? In other words, the rebuild costs and the facilities would be on the capital cost side, and the others would be on the running cost side, as I go through your figures here.

In your judgment, which part of that should the federal government be involved in? And if you were to put a responsible number on that, what would the annual number be?

[Stephen Cheasley]

To answer the question, you need both. You can't just take an item and save it without having a building in which it can go, because the preservation and conservation includes the building, as you have to have it in a proper environment. So our concern is that the federal government should be looking after the preservation, the conservation, and the interpretation. That's what we're saying here.

What kind of a number would be put on that? Have we discussed that?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

It would depend on whether it is for a specific collection or for a set of historical artifacts belonging to several organizations. We are fully aware of the problems faced by our collection because we work with it and know the extent to which our premises are run down. It is crucial that the federal government work as a partner in terms of operational costs. It should also be involved in capital investment, but once a capital investment project is underway, operational upkeep funding is also needed to allow a museum to fulfill its mandate.

In our case, had the Quebec's government Department of Culture and Communications not supported us from the beginning, the collection would not have been saved. Our association could not have saved it. Given the size and needs of our collection and our building, we need a considerable amount of money. A not-for-profit organization without support from the federal government could not manage alone. That is why it is very important for us that the federal government, which has provided us with intermittent support in the past, become a full-fledged partner, like the other members of the partnership.

Mr. Cheasley spoke earlier of our collection. The Canadian Railroad Historical Association was founded by railway lovers, most of whom came from an academic, railway, or historical background. Strict guidelines as to what constitutes a railway collection have been in force since the association was first set up in 1932. They have been strictly adhered to throughout the years. New members have always respected these guidelines and have chosen artifacts that are in some way representative of Canada, be it technologically, historically, socially, or because of their association with a historically important figure. That is why our association has the most impressive collection. Any expert would agree, even those working for the Québec government's Department of Higher Education Science. Our association selected the best artifacts when it first established the collection, and we continue to do the same today. That is why this collection is inimitable. Simply having an instruction car is not enough for another organization to open a museum elsewhere. Our collection boasts an instruction car, the right postal car, and the private cars of Mr. Van Horne and Mr. Hays, the President of Grand Trunk Railway. Our collection boasts those key artifacts that reflect the participation of all Canadians in building their country. Other artifacts around the country have a certain value, but our collection is priceless. I really believe that these artifacts are worthy of significant support from the federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. We went a little over time there.

Mr. Bélanger is next, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I await the comments of my colleagues, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Angus, with baited breath. I hope that we will have the opportunity to respond, and that you will not simply let him wrap up the meeting.

I have some questions for you on a different matter. I apologize if they have already been asked, but I had to step out of the room. My questions concern the underlying principles that govern State involvement in museum funding. You compared your situation to that of museums in England, France, the United States and Denmark.

Are you comparing like with like? Who owns your collection? Is it the same situation in France, England and other countries with a high level of State involvement?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

No.

The collection belongs to the Canadian Railroad Historical Association, which is a private not-for-profit body. It is extremely uncommon for an important railroad collection not to be State-owned. Usually, when it is not State-owned, it is owned by the State body responsible for railways. In France, for example, the collection is owned by the SNCF and administered by a not-for-profit body.

In other countries, the collection is under State ownership. In some cases, it is owned by the Department of Transport or the National Railroad Company, but in general collections are State-owned.

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

Do you think that state ownership ought to be one of the conditions for receiving a high level of funding from the Canadian government?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

Our president stated earlier that the board has no objection to the collection becoming a state owned collection. The first and foremost objective of our association has always been the preservation of Canada's railroad heritage. We are therefore open to aims of achieving this goal.

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

If I understood correctly, from what was said earlier, there are three such museums in Canada?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

There are several railway museums, but they are not all of the same size. Ours is the only one that is so large.

There are some museums with smaller collections. The Pembroke Museum, for example, specializes in Canadian Pacific's passenger transport. Often, the smaller collections focus on one specialized area.

The Canada Science and Technology Museum's collection is far smaller. Mr. Abbott made mention of an institution earlier. In a case like that one, our association lends artifacts from its collection. When it is important for a particular artifact to be in a given region, our association will lend it to a well organized museum interested in showcasing it. That is what we do for the Revelstoke Museum, for example. Other museums around Canada also own some of our artifacts. Generally, the loans take the form of 25-year leases.

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

If, in a context of a museum's policy, we were to develop a series of principles on ownership and the number of national, regional, provincial or even local institutions, what recommendations would you make?

You do not have to answer straight away. You could submit a written response to our clerk. He would be delighted to send it on to all of us.

I have another question for you as well, although, in a certain sense, it was actually you who raised it. You said that you make loans to other museums. I know that the Canada Aviation Museum has a similar policy. Over the years, it has developed fairly close ties with, among others, an aviation museum in Hamilton.

Do you have similar such ties with the Canada Science and Technology Museum?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

In terms of exhibition artifacts, not directly. However, it has happened that the Canada Science and Technology Museum has been unable to keep certain artifacts. Although I am not privy to why this should be, I do know that, in light of our expertise in the field, we have been given some artifacts from its collection. It found it easier to offer them to us, although we did not always accept them. In addition, we have organized joint travelling exhibitions with the Canada Science and Technology Museum, although these involved small artifacts and not railway vehicles.

The museum has however send us some railway vehicles which we have integrated into our collection.

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

When you accept an artifact from the Canada Science and Technology Museum, or another museum or railway association, there are costs involved. There are costs related to upkeep, storage and so forth. Do you receive financial assistance from these institutions?

[Marie-Claude Reid]

No. The railway companies provide transport and help us with specific projects. For example, over the past few years, certain railway companies have renovated vehicles before giving them to us, thus making it easier for us to display them. However, it is not always so; museums do not undertake such projects for us.

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

Do you have a foundation?