Evidence of meeting #6 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was exhibition.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
When you addressed the issue of the ceiling and also the cap—the cap being per exhibition, and the ceiling being for the overall program limits of $1.5 billion—I noticed you did some analysis of the changes to the program that could be made, but there are no specific recommendations at this time. Can we expect there will be some recommendations forthcoming?
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
We're certainly hoping to hear your views, as broadly speaking members of the government, in the sense of what risk it is reasonable for the Crown to accept. In order to have that approved, we would need some form of cabinet approval, whether through a Treasury Board or cabinet submission, because it would be an increase in the contingent liability to the Crown. So this is probably the route that would be taken.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Good. But this committee typically wouldn't act, and the minister wouldn't act, without some recommendation coming forward from the minister's staff.
This is all new to me. In fact, it really opens my eyes as to what happens behind the scenes of these travelling exhibitions. There's so much more there than I think the public knows. I'm not sure the public knows that they're actually risking taxpayers' dollars, although the risk seems to be fairly slight given our record.
Before we're expected to make a decision or have a discussion with you on that, perhaps your staff could come back with recommendations that you've thought through, because you have more knowledge on this than we do.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
I think it's fair to say that we can talk about some of the trend lines. I would look out, for example, for the next five years. If we assume that the demand on the program will rise at the same rate it has risen, we would be in the order of $3 billion, simply covering with the same cap. So the annual ceiling would be there. If we started to raise the cap as well, and we noticed that not only was demand increasing but also the value of exhibitions, there could be a higher....
We can certainly provide you with that kind of analysis around trend lines.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That would be very helpful, for both caps and ceilings. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Just before we go to Mr. Kotto again—because I know he always has a long list of questions—I'm wondering if I might ask a question.
Again, so many times when government makes funding available or brings out a program, it's usually set at a certain level for five years and we find the very next year that the cost of living and cost of other things have gone up, as you expressed about some of the paintings, such as the $95 million painting. Some of these things weren't heard of five years ago.
I wonder if there should be a cost of living allowance in a program, or an allowance for the program to expand so much each year, because we hear so many times of long-term sustainable funding. If all of a sudden you're at risk, or the museums or the various institutions that want to promote some of these things, and the trend lines show there is more demand for this, I would think that if we're going to be in the business of travelling museums, then it has to be reasonable and has to stay within at least the cost of living, or as things increase somewhat. So that's just a statement.
I know that the Petra exhibit is at our Canadian Museum of Civilization now. Would this be a particular program covered under your program?
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
The Museum of Civilization did not approach us to indemnify Petra, and I don't know why. I believe Rocket Richard is still circulating under indemnification, an exhibit they initiated, and perhaps they felt they'd had their dibs. But they didn't approach us for it.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Good afternoon, and thank you for being here.
On page 4 of your document, you indicate that the fair market value of foreign objects is greater than 50%. Fifty percent of what?
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
That must be an error in the French version, and I do apologize. The English version clearly states $500,000. On page 4, the fair market value of an exhibit, in other words of the content of the exhibit, must be a minimum of $500,000.
Forgive me. I see that you are talking about the next bullet on the page. Indeed, if the exhibit comprises 100 objects, that means that 50 of those objects must be Canadian or foreign. It is the percentage of the objects included in the exhibit.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
You seemed to be saying earlier that when the program was set up, some museums had complained about the wait times for approval of the facilities hosting the exhibits. Could you tell me if this situation has been corrected?
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
We now have a base of pre-approved institutions, which is an improvement. We require several months to gather humidity or temperature-related data, for example. Three further months might be required to carry out repairs and rehabilitation work. Bringing a locale up to standard can also take some time, which is a major problem.
Bloc
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
The standards are quite high. The number of institutions in Canada that meet strict museum standards is limited. That is indeed the case.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Once five years are up, you must review the safety and security of the various facilities. Has this process begun?
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
We will be undertaking this process in cooperation with our colleagues from the Canadian Conservation Institute. We have two programs that require a review of the facilities. The Moveable Cultural Property Program, for cultural gift tax credit purposes, also requires the attainment of certain standards, so as to ensure the long-term preservation of buildings. We have linked two programs together and we have begun a review of our certification process under each one of them.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
That is a good question.
Keith, do you have an answer?
Manager, Indemnification Program, Department of Canadian Heritage
You want to know how much time the renewal process will take?
Manager, Indemnification Program, Department of Canadian Heritage
We cover fire prevention, the security and preservation of collections, including looking at ambient temperature and ambient moisture. In principle, this process takes less than two months. It is a simple matter of obtaining information. Even before institutions apply for another exhibition, we must remind them that this review is required. Given that it is a five year timeframe, they cannot even launch the process before the five years are up.
The applicant must supply us with the pertinent information required under this process. Generally speaking, you are looking at two months or less.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
With your permission, I would like to add something.
We are talking here of international standards for collection conservation. If Canadian institutions wish to conserve their collections, it is in their interest to bring their systems up to date. It is trickier to apply the standards the first time, because that is when we detect the greatest number of problems.
It is however our hope that, after five years, institutions will have continued to do regular checks of the ambient temperature and humidity in their facilities. It is therefore our expectation that there would be fewer problems the second time, the verification practice being in place.
