Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

[John McAvity]

As I said, I've been the executive director for a little while, and the issue of funding really started in the early 1980s when the cuts started happening. At that point, we had regional conservation centres, and they were closed. We had regional national museums--for example, the museum in Saint-Constant was recognized as a specialized entity because of the quality of the collection. That program came to an end. I could go on and on with the lists.

I have appeared before successive finance committees making recommendations in pre-budget consultations for as many years as I can think of. Frequently the finance committee does recognize the needs of museums. The history has been that sometimes we receive a little increase, then a program review comes along, and it's sort of like this. But overall, when we step back and look at it, our sector has been neglected a very long time. It has not had a truly comprehensive policy review.

In 1990 Marcel Masse did update the museum policy. The best thing to say is that it was updated and funding was doubled or tripled, but it was quickly lost a few years later.

We've had a “one step forward and one step back” kind of situation, and we're basically back at 1972 levels right now.

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

I do not want to turn knife in the wound, can you wait much longer for a museum policy with proper funding?

[Guy Vadeboncoeur]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You have the floor, Mr. Perron.

[Michel Perron, Executive Director, Société des musées québécois]

Honestly, no, and I will explain why.

I too have been working in the museums sector for a number of years. Museums in Canada are facing situations that would have been unthinkable of 10 years ago.

Let me give you some specific examples. Some museums have closed. People often see museums as forces of stability similar to libraries, educational institutions, and so on.

Some museums that are not-for-profit organizations close because they can no longer fulfil their mandate. The situation is paradoxical, because we have an extremely well-developed network of museums that perform very well. The paradox is, on the one hand, that we have tremendous potential—collections, programs and museography that is recognized throughout the world—and on the other hand, a cash flow problem makes it difficult to face the music.

Sometimes municipalities or other organizations cannot withstand this pressure. Time spent waiting for responses to applications under various programs is hard to take for both small and large organizations.

To state it clearly, museums have to take out lines of credit and negotiate with banks with relatively few assets. Museums are actually the depositories of collections that are managed by the Cultural Property Commission or other bodies—they're not the owners of the collection. The collections belong to Canadians collectively.

So the museums find themselves in a paradoxical situation. They must at the same time be an extremely promising and well-organized community, while being at the end of what they can do without any harmonized, more logical and rational assistance from the federal government.

For us, a policy is a way to optimize and harmonize our efforts.

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

Mention has been made to this committee of having another brief consultation process on a new policy. Once again, I do not want to turn the knife, but what do you think about this idea?

[Guy Vadeboncoeur]

We will repeat exactly what we have been saying throughout the other consultations held 2, 3, 4 or even 10 years ago. It is as simple as that: The situation has not changed.

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

Mr. Osmond.

[Gerry Osmond]

To put it in layman's terms, we've been there and done that. You will not hear anything different on consultations any more. We would have been very clear in the last consultation, and delaying this process any further will not give you any new information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you very much.

When the MAP was announced for cuts, of the hundreds of millions of dollars the heritage department oversees, that was one of the few programs specifically targeted. I was there when the Treasury Board minister made the statement and said they are going after the wasteful, inefficient, and out of touch programs.

Then the heritage minister came before us, and during that meeting, as Mr. Bélanger explained, Mr. Fast dropped what I thought was somewhat of a bombshell, in that he produced numbers showing that millions of dollars weren't spent year after year in the MAP program. So we specifically asked the minister.

We weren't talking about Young Canada Works, we were talking about MAP, whether or not MAP money had been used or hadn't been used. The minister's assistant said on the record.... I asked how it could be possible that all these museums have been begging for money and never bothered to use this money, and he said it was an issue of sophistication.

So someone's playing fast and loose with the facts here, and I'm wanting to know, at the very least, do you feel your organizations are country bumpkins and can't fill out forms that can be used by the Department of Heritage?

[Michel Perron]

I will try to answer your question, Mr. Angus.

I am very familiar with the four components of the Museums Assistance Program, or MAP. The program is made up of four components, but in actual fact or in the field, things work out very differently. Let me give you an example.

In Quebec, about one application in three to the MAP is accepted, and I think the percentage is about the same for the rest of Canada. In the last fiscal year, the vast majority of the grants or contributions were less than the amounts requested. The requests are never accepted in full, and we are never given any explanation for this. So only one application in three is accepted, and it is accepted in part only.

As Mr. Vadeboncoeur said, peer review boards, like almost all committees, do two things. They draw up a list of priority projects for the minister who, of course, has the final say. That is as it should be. Then they establish other projects that are on hold. These are not projects that remain in application baskets; they are projects that are extremely interesting, but that cannot be considered priorities.

If we do not draw on these lists of projects on hold, and if the subsidies are below the amount requested, where is the money? If there is money left over, why is it not being used? In light of our analysis, the problem seems to have do to in large part with closed budgetary envelopes. These are reserves based on territorial divisions, the nature of various client groups or certain components compared to others; in this case we talk about envelopes by component.

If there is money left over in one envelope, for example for one of the components or for one of the territories that have not used the amounts for whatever reason, we think it would be logical that these funds be made available to the general program. In other words, that would make it possible to fund the projects on hold.

We think this is a sort of plumbing or bureaucratic problem, because quite clearly, the amounts being provided fall far below the needs.

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

Well, I'd like to ask you about that, because it seems to me we're dealing with three major problems that have run over our museums. Number one is the declining dollars, year after year. Number two is being a victim of political games, that now you're back at square one and you'll be invited to round-table discussions and stakeholder discussions, and preliminary papers, which means action will be put further and further down the road. But number three is the issue of the bureaucratic rigidity of the heritage department and whether they are the ones who are wasteful, inefficient, and out of touch with the needs.

In light of my having had experience on many juries at the Ontario provincial level, I would like to ask whether or not you would support a notion of taking the funding outside of the heritage department completely, not just for museums but for other heritage programs, setting up a jury system to administer the programs and having all these programs administered at arm's length from the present bureaucracy within the heritage department. Would that at least begin to alleviate the plumbing problem?

[John McAvity]

Yes. In fact, in 1984, I think it was, the Applebaum-Hébert report, which was a major task force that looked at funding of the arts in Canada as a whole, recommended in the museum case the establishment of a heritage council similar to the Canada Council. This is where you would focus programs, not just for museums but for libraries, archives, historic places, a variety of different types of programs. That, to us, makes a lot of sense. We've called for that in our brief to you. We would very much support it.

It would not only be delivered more efficiently and effectively, but I think it would also give the opportunity to engage other Canadians in that process. A board is put in place, high-profile people, and it lends to a critical mass that I think is also very important. The peer juries are absolutely critical.

[Gerry Osmond]

I would echo John's comment. In my brief I mentioned the need for peer juries, and I fully believe that, but as a member of an organization that has been an arm's-length funding body for museums in Alberta for almost 20 years, I can tell you that the process is very effective and it's very efficient in terms of accountability; we are perhaps even more accountable, because we have to ensure that we spend the money in a responsible manner.

We also have our ear to the ground. We know the needs of the community, and they have a sounding board at all times through to us. A model like this would certainly make the process more efficient and, I think, more effective as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott is next.

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

Thank you to our witnesses. I think your testimony here today is very helpful.

There are perhaps some small, and I'm sure unintentional, misunderstandings between ourselves on the committee in terms of the pace at which the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to get moving forward on a new museums policy. I know she is very keen on it. As a matter of fact, I dug up some testimony. When she was at committee, she responded to Mr. Angus:

...that is why I would suggest that we're undertaking a review of our approach and our program regarding museums. That is why I've also indicated that I really welcome the work you will be doing in your discussions

--that's referring to the committee, of course--

with the museums sector, just as in my discussions we hope we will be able to bring back some very good, valid information with some strong, firm recommendations.

I was also interested in Mr. McAvity's testimony today, in which he pointed out that the minister has asked him for further input before Christmas as she moves forward with her policy development. So if there has been some misunderstanding, that's unfortunate. Unfortunately, the opposition members of this committee have tied up the committee days between now and the Christmas parliamentary recess.

The government did make an irrevocable decision on the court challenges program. I understand the persons and organizations affected by that decision wanted to be heard on the record; that's absolutely their right, and I would support that, but we learned just on Monday of this week that the justice standing committee has already begun hearing the witnesses. I think it's an obviously redundant initiative that in spite of that, the opposition members of this heritage committee have decided to use up our future committee time hearing some of the same court witnesses. I note that they decided to use not one--

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

This is completely off topic.

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

It was a committee decision, Mr. Chair.

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

That's fine.

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

How do you know who decided?

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

I believe we had.... Did we not have a recorded vote?

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

In camera. Do you want to go there? Do you want to break in camera? I'm willing to do that.

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

That being the case, I take your point, and you have my full apology. I was out of order in making that statement.

However, there has been a decision by this committee to use up the remaining three days of time between now and Christmas, so I am going to be tabling a motion today for a debate to take place as soon as the next committee meeting, hopefully to get a commitment from this committee to complete a study of the federal government's role in museums. I think it's really important that this committee contribute to the process the minister is undertaking. I think it's very important that they contribute to the process, particularly prior to the forthcoming budget.

However, that's a choice the committee is going to have to make. As a point of relevance for this committee, if we can come to that conclusion--that is, that we should be having a hearing--I wonder if the witnesses can give us a bit of an idea, some suggestions, or some recommendations. In addition to your reports, who else should we be speaking to? I think it's really important that we break out of the paradigm. Who else should we be taking advice from?

[John McAvity]

Do you mean in terms of developing a new museum policy? I think you've got a representative sample here and in the hearings that you've already undertaken.

We recognize that a lot of work has been done by this committee. You've had representatives here from several railway museums, which are very unique institutions. We appeared in June as well, and recommendations are on the record of the finance committee from many of these organizations and others here. I see there's a member from the finance committee sitting here today as well too.

I think the work is there. I think we're very close to the political will being there. I should also share with you that I have had a conversation with Mr. Flaherty, the Minister of Finance, who has invited me to meet with him very shortly--before December 1--to explore possibilities as well.

Now, these are not firm commitments, but I think we're moving, so I would urge you as a committee to undertake what work you deem essential to ensure that this does go forward as soon as possible. We would certainly very much appreciate that.