It is interesting in this connection. Certainly in 1987, when this whole issue came up with the restructuring of the National Museums of Canada, the issue came up as to whether or not it would be better as an arm's-length agency or in the hands of a government department under the control of a minister. At that time, the Canadian Museums Association certainly supported putting it under the control of a government department, because they felt that was the only way they were going to get the money they would like to get. In the past 25 years, exactly the opposite has happened. Except for the dip or the cuts that took place in the middle nineties, the budget of the Canada Council has been increased considerably, while the budget for the museums has seen exactly the opposite.
This also speaks to Mr. Kotto's question. When it comes to giving the money, if you have a strong board like the one the Canada Council had, with people like Mavor Moore and Maureen Forrester chairing it, people who spoke up for the arts, they were in effect the advocates for the arts at the federal level. We don't have that for museums. We had it to some degree when the National Museums of Canada still existed. So going on the historical evidence, that's one of the reasons why I think that should happen.
The Canada Council is a very good model. From my own experience in government, it's one of the most forthright institutions in government in getting the information on its website. All the members of the peer group juries are there, as are the grants given, and so on and so forth. There is all sorts of statistical information. It's all there. They have a very good reputation. They can move fast. They're in a better position....
One of the things about grants to any kind of a cultural institution is that there is always some kind of a risk. If a theatre company is putting on a season of plays and one of them bombs, they may lose their shirt on that one, but there is nothing you can do about that. But the money wasn't misspent. Rather, they took a risk that didn't work. Certainly in the arts, in my estimation, people need to have the right to make the odd mistake.
There is the insulation of the arm's-length agency. It's not the minister who makes the decision to give a certain amount of money to a certain organization to do a certain thing. It is this council. It's the political master's job to find out globally what money should be given to what agency, but when it comes to grants, I fervently believe it's up to the arts organizations and the museums to decide who gets how much, in accordance with the needs of the field, with what museums need, first of all.
For valid reasons, with things like Young Canada Works and the student employment grant programs and so on—that's the one you were referring to—about one-quarter of it lapsed because of the administrative inertia in getting the—