Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

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

Can you make any recommendations or suggestions for us to consider as to what other steps we should take? Perhaps following this committee meeting, would you care to provide the names of who else we should be talking to?

I think it is really important. For example, the initiative you've outlined that was brought out by Mr. Angus today is very helpful. That's one of the things that might help us break out of the current situation.

Are there other people you could recommend to help us in this job?

[John McAvity]

I really want to reiterate that we've come together with a pretty solid view. If anything, you may want to consider looking at some of the international models that exist. In the United States, for example, there is a program called Save America's Treasures, which is largely a public-private model. I think it would be interesting to see how it works and whether it works. It appears to bring in about $100 million a year.

In other countries there are different approaches for funding museums and libraries. We've looked at them, read their websites, and asked questions of them. In some cases we've met them over the years. To a large extent we've cherry-picked from some of them, and have come to you with this combination package that shows short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals.

In arriving at these goals we have undertaken our own internal consultations, so we haven't just pulled them out of the dark. We want to make sure that our members in the museum community have been involved and are behind us. I can confidently say today that they are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Just out of curiosity, you say you were asked to give recommendations to the government by the end of this calendar year. When did that happen?

[John McAvity]

We met with the Minister of Canadian Heritage last Monday, October 30. We had a meeting that was scheduled for 30 minutes. It went on for over one hour. It was a very interesting, frank, small, intimate meeting, and we are very encouraged. Of course, the minister did not make a firm commitment. We didn't expect that.

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

You were asked to provide that last Monday.

[John McAvity]

Yes. It was on October 30.

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

That was significantly after the cuts were announced. Do you think the popular reaction of all the museums across the country and the three opposition parties in the House of Commons might have had something to do with encouraging the government to move forward?

[John McAvity]

I don't know how the decision to make the cuts was made, but I think we've been able to show that museums are very popular. In the latest report from Statistics Canada, attendance was up by four million people.

Museums are central to our lives. So I think that message got through.

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

Since we're into that kind of atmosphere, do you think that highlighting the contradiction between what was said during the campaign and what was done after the campaign might have also led to the government realizing it should pay greater attention to getting museum policy going?

[John McAvity]

I think we've been able to bring that issue forward and remind Canadians of that. It may not have been one of the five big priorities, but there were other promises made. Our strategy has been to focus on the need for new museum policy. We haven't been really focussing on the cuts, for example. There are too many questions as yet unanswered on that. My own organization has barely mentioned the cuts.

The minister stood up in the House of Commons and said they intended to bring in a new museum policy because museums had been neglected for too long. That was three days after the cuts. That was the news we were waiting for.

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

Before that, had you been given any indication about the time horizon we were looking at for a new museum policy?

[John McAvity]

Yes. I had been informed by her office initially that it would be several years down the way.

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

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I would like to thank our witnesses.

As you know, establishing a new museum policy should be an apolitical matter, I would say. In fact, this new policy should have no political connotation whatsoever. As you said in your presentations, it should be based on multi-year funding in order to give the museums of Quebec and Canada the tools they need to do their job properly in the years ahead.

I would remind our colleagues, as you said yourselves, that there is nothing more to be said. For example, I have here a copy of the roundtable report. In addition, you had other discussions for many years. You tabled a report, made some presentations, and you told us clearly that there was nothing more to find out. You have already passed on all the information. This would be redundant, because there is nothing new to be tabled.

I would also remind the colleagues that in September, a notice of motion was tabled in the House and a report was passed. The motion read as follows:

Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government maintains the funding for the Museums Assistance Program, MAP, at the level it was at during the 2005-2006 fiscal year until a new museum policy is in place. The committee also recommends that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House by the Chair as soon as possible.

This was done, and the motion was voted on and passed by the House. So as of September 27, the minister had 120 days to come forward with a new museum policy and to comply with the committee's request.

If we begin a new round of discussions, when will we have this new museum policy? We would be postponing things indefinitely. I do not think that is what you want. Is that what you want?

[Michel Perron]

Obviously not, Mr. Malo. I think you have summarized the situation very well. There are actually two factors that come into play here.

We need this policy very quickly, because our sector is regressing. The lack of a policy has some genuine negative consequences. In addition, there are the cutbacks. I'd just like to refer to them once again. I think it would be logical to review this cutback, and that it be cancelled and that we be given a guarantee that this will be done. I think this is required in order to restore the trust required for us to move towards developing a clear policy with the government.

How can we hope to have a clear, generous and forward-looking policy that really does the job if, at the same time, we are already slashing the only program for museums? Obviously, there is a huge paradox here. We are waiting for two signals. The Société des musées québécois has made two requests of this type, as we say in our brief. We ask that the trust be restored, and in order to do that, the government must have the courage to review this decision—something that would be much appreciated, and then deliver this policy we need so badly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for coming. I think your input today is invaluable in moving forward with drafting a new museums policy.

I want to go back for a second to comments Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Angus made regarding the possible underfunding of the programs, or perhaps the failure to spend the total budget for MAP. I can't tell you why that may or may not have happened.

There was a comment from Mr. Osmond, as well, that he's been working for ten years, presenting the same arguments to the government at this table, and nothing has really changed. Again, I can't tell you why that happened. Presumably, you'd have to ask the previous government, the previous minister, who I believe was Ms. Frulla.

I do know that there appears to be general consensus at this table that we do move forward with a new museums policy. Having heard your discussion and your input here, one set of comments, to me, was very instructive, which doesn't diminish the rest of your information.

Mr. McAvity I think touched on something really important. When the finance minister and the Treasury Board president talked about trimming the fat, Minister Flaherty also explained what he meant by that term. He focused on, first of all, eliminating programs that were obsolete. He talked about eliminating programs that don't reflect current Canadian priorities. But he also talked about refocusing resources and making sure we have programs that deliver clear and measurable results.

Mr. McAvity, you actually mentioned that. You talked about what you'd like to see us do going forward, and I'd like to touch on that. You mentioned a number of things. One of your colleagues referred to predictable multi-year funding. You referred to tax incentives. You talked about getting a better handle on capital funding, perhaps on a ten-year program. You talked about external evaluation of programs, which I think is important as well. Also, you talked about public-private partnerships.

I think that is the kind of information we are really looking for here. Even though I've only been on this committee for some eight months, you're bringing a wealth of experience to the table. I believe there is goodwill not only at this table but at the minister's level to move forward with this.

We've talked about some of the financial aspects of your challenges. Mr. McAvity, could you give me some additional things you would like to see in a museums policy that don't necessarily affect the funding aspect of it--and I understand that is important--perhaps some other aspects that would make the program more accountable and more efficient in delivering what it's supposed to?

[John McAvity]

I think the program is highly accountable and all of the applicants are highly accountable. I don't think, in the history of this program back to 1972, there has ever been found to be a case of abuse, fraud, theft, or anything like that. You're dealing with museums here, you know. These are honest folk who are working very hard for very low wages. There's no private gain--all of that sort of stuff.

In terms of efficiency, yes. We believe there's a lot of efficiency that can be achieved by moving the programs out to an arm's-length agency. The Canada Council, for example, operates on an overhead allocation of about 15%. Don't hold me to that figure, but it's somewhere in that range, which is a very reasonable figure. About eight to ten years ago it was actually operating at about a 25% overhead allocation, which was too high. It has made itself a much more efficient organization. It makes qualitative decisions, sometimes difficult ones, using the peer juries. I think it is, in fact, a model of a well-run program.

We would like to see these museum programs moved to such an agency. It would expedite the process. The same level of accountability can be there. The paperwork can be less onerous than it is at present. We have some museums right now that have been waiting eleven months, twelve months. They applied last November 1, and still haven't got a yes or no. And that's just no way to run a railway--or a national railway.

We need to see how the program itself can be efficient, and I'm quite sure that is possible. Being at arm's length is one idea. We mentioned setting up a heritage council, but there are other structures that already exist that could take on such a program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

I don't know if this was raised in my brief absence, but we had a witness come before us who suggested that Heritage Canada stop directly funding museums through the MAP program, for example, and that an arm's-length funding agency like the Canada Council be created. He said if you look at the history and the facts and the evidence, you'll see that when the federal government did that for the arts, in the long run the funding for the arts went up. Somehow creating a Canada Council had the effect of creating a lobby group at the same time, and for whatever reason, the empirical evidence shows that it was good for arts funding in Canada.

I'm just curious as to what you think of that idea.

[John McAvity]

We fully support it. One of the suggestions there is that such an agency can receive funds from private individuals. In fact, the Canada Council was set up with two very large endowments, and since then there have been additional private funds that have been added to it. So you have a synergy here between public and private partnership. In the case of the Canada Council, most of it is.

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

I'll tell you what my reservation is--and maybe I'll overcome it. I find there's too much hiving off of government responsibility to independent third parties. Sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's necessary. In the case of the Canada Council, I believe it's necessary. I don't believe that government should be choosing among art works.

But I think when we're talking about museums, we may be talking about a different kettle of fish. I must admit that I kind of like the idea that somebody can appeal to the government and say they're not being fairly treated here, whatever, by this trust or this body, for some reason, that there's some internal politics. And we heard evidence of some internal politics from our witnesses at last Wednesday's meeting.

So I like this idea that there can be counterbalancing forces, and I don't think it's so dangerous for the government to be making funding decisions about museums, not as dangerous as it would be, for example, for the government to be micro-managing the CBC or the Canada Council. That's where my reservations come in, but I really appreciate your input on that issue.

Thank you.

[Gerry Osmond]

If I can just respond very quickly, another benefit of an arm's-length body is transparency. One of the frustrations I've had with this process is that the criteria for eligibility for projects are not consistent across the country.