Evidence of meeting #9 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 funding.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I'll say at the beginning, gentlemen, don't take it as a slight that I'm going to ignore you for the next five minutes; not that Ms. Bachmann is a voter, she is.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I have spent hundreds of hours researching in museums and libraries, so I am aware of the urgency of the issue. I'll focus on my region because I know it very well.
You raised the issue of the role it plays in economic development. I think there's certainly a push from a tourism perspective to promote our heritage and our history. But we often get the settler history from tourism, the kind of kitschy, two-dimensional story that people know before they see it. It seems to me that it's the role of the museum to mine our history, find new histories within our history, and look for stories that weren't seen as significant 30 years ago, 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
The problem the museums are facing is this. What kind of support do you have for field researchers to get out and do first-person narratives before they're lost and to work in partnerships with universities to get collections of photos, from people who moved away, before these photos are scattered? Is there support within the programming dollars for that role?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Timmins Museum and National Exhibition Centre
I'll speak on behalf of my site. I don't want to generalize museums across the country, but I'm quite certain there are a number that are going to echo this.
I'm the sole researcher on my site. I am also the director-curator, and I do whatever else I need to do. However, on a lot of the smaller sites, we rely on those wonderful student programs and human resource programs where we hire students every year. On a lot of sites, a lot of the core research is being done by these kids. Some of them are very good and some of them are not so good.
It's an issue that brings about the fact that curators on smaller sites don't have the luxury of time to devote to actually doing the job. It becomes something that we don't do firsthand because we're looking for funding, we're worried about watching the contractor who's fixing the roof because we're now liable for that, or we're doing things like that. It's a big issue.
You brought up the tourism issue, and we talked about this last summer in Timmins. Whenever you talk about using heritage to stimulate economic development, it has a role; however, I find that the big discussion is on tourism. How are we going to get all of these other people to come to our sites, without actually looking at the fact that museums service their communities first, not the tourists? Yes, tourists come and visit, and it's wonderful. We all welcome them to our doors, and we'll never turn them away. But we have a responsibility to our people as well, and that doesn't always happen.
A lot of the discussion then becomes not about the importance of the museum and the heritage of the community but about how we're going to get some bucks out of this to support something else. The issue is always skirted. It happens on smaller sites. I'm not going to say it happens everywhere, but it certainly happens on a number of smaller sites.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Allen Sapp Gallery
I think it's important to also recognize the difference between core funding and project funding in terms of being able to do that.
Two years ago, we undertook a project called “Through the Eyes of the Cree”, where we interviewed elders. It was part of a project that was funded by MAP, a wonderful project. In the course of that, we began to realize that the elders we had created a dialogue with were telling us about events surrounding 1885. It was the first time the first nations were telling their stories. We kept the cameras running and recorded those stories. We then tried to get funding for a project in order to get that information, but our elder died.
The elders are dying across this country. The keepers of the stories, who know what those artifacts are about, are not going to live forever. The urgency that we're talking about here isn't only because buildings are rotting and the artifacts are disappearing. It's because the keepers of those stories, the people who know the history, aren't going to be around forever. You and I know that in our own families.
It's the difference between project funding and operational funding. If we had core operational funding that would allow us to have curators do the jobs they're supposed to be doing, we wouldn't be losing those stories.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
I wanted to add as well that this is a good question you've asked.
Also, because of the decline in public support over the last 20 years from federal-provincial sources, museums have had to cut back. Their attention has been on what we call the front-door activities, which are the gift shop, marketing, and special glamourous activities to attract people.
What has declined has been behind the scenes. Our storage facilities, the state of collections, and the amount of research that's done. That's number one.
Number two, there is virtually no source of funding for research, as Mr. Angus asked for. For example, we have researched federal research agencies that provide money to post-secondary educational institutions, such as SSHRC, NSERC, and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. They are wonderful agencies, but they don't fund museums. They do not take museums as serious research institutes. We object to that and would like to see it change. We think museums should be eligible. Right now, the only way they can be eligible is if they get into bed with the universities and have a cross-appointment, or something similar.
So the door is starting to open at these agencies, and we'd really appreciate it if you could encourage them to make museums more eligible.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We'll catch you again when the time comes around. I did give you a little extra time, because those were great answers for your great question.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
June 20th, 2006 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you very much for coming out today. We certainly appreciate the miles that you have travelled, as some come from further distances. We do appreciate that, especially those of us who travel long distances every week.
There are a couple of questions I want to bring up. Actually, when Mr. Angus was talking about the website that had been developed, or he was hoping would be developed, by the museum he was involved in, it got me thinking that this may be very important for future generations. Obviously, as museums, you collect old things, but obviously you're having to move into new mediums. Can you explain some of the initiatives that are coming forward? Obviously generations that come may start to consume things differently, and they won't necessarily always travel through bricks and mortar, or concrete buildings. They might go through the Internet and so on. Could you explain some of the initiatives here?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
Ms. Sherwood referred to the Virtual Museum of Canada, for example. This is an agency that has helped fund very innovative museum Internet applications. So it is possible, it is widely used in school systems, and it is a very good step. Of course, museums already have their own websites and other virtual things. These are wonderful steps, but they're never going to replace the real thing—the visit to a museum and seeing and touching history or art—which is what we're really interested in. So those kinds of activities are happening.
I think it's also important to say that, frankly, museum people lie awake at night worrying about how their institution can be more relevant to society and communities. I truly mean that. Most of our conferences look at the question of how we build relevance. Today's museums really want to become different. They want to become community centres where people from different cultures can meet, share ideas, and work together.
In fact, we've said in our brief that in many ways we complement the health care and educational systems. We want to be community centres of learning and exchange. We want to see them as dynamic institutions--not dusty places where there are old things, but dynamic institutions addressing the needs of society today.
Many museums put on contemporary exhibitions that discuss contemporary issues. Shortly after 9/11, British Columbia's Museum of Anthropology opened a major exhibition about Islamic culture in Canada and the values that Muslims bring. These are important bridges to building understanding in our society.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
The next question I'll ask carefully, because it may be sensitive. I've been involved in a fund-raising campaign for one of our local museums. It was to build and expand our local museum. Then I was asked to be involved in the neighbouring communities, and then down the road we went. Right now there are seven different museums involved, in close proximity to the city I live in.
It causes me to wonder how much is too much. When do we decide that, in terms of the long-term viability of each of these museums, we might fall into a situation of challenge where we're not able to sustain everything we're building?
Of course, every local community and every ghost town wants to honour the past in that specific location. It goes back to that whole thing of having something tangible—the bricks and the mortar—to touch and to feel in order to experience the past.
How do we as parliamentarians from the federal level start the discussion as to how we can manage things to ensure we don't leave a huge burden to future generations that they're unable to sustain?
5 p.m.
Chairman, Canadian Museums Association
That's an excellent question, and it's one we deal with. I think it's important for all jurisdictions. If you're going to be involved in the construction, the capital, the building of a new facility, make sure there is a business plan. They're all for excellent purposes. Make sure, no matter what, it is sustainable; otherwise, we're not doing anyone any good.
Those business plans can be done. You make sure the partners are in place. It's not helpful just to put in capital money and construct and not worry about the future, and I think a number of museums have found themselves in that position.
The other side of the coin, of course, is not to be involved in funding and let it dwindle away over time. There need to be long-term commitments.
One of the problems we have is with this short-term, one-year thinking. And it's not just the feds; we need to get partnerships with other levels of government, with business, and the community.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Certainly, and I appreciate that.
I'm wondering if I'm out of time.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Yes, you are; that's the right question. I hope you can keep that question.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.
5 p.m.
An hon. member
He finally got your name right!
5 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
What is the main criterion for funding under the museums assistance program? You say it's too restrictive on many levels, but is there a main criterion for funding?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
The first criterion in terms of eligibility is basically that the museum has to be open year-round and have a minimum of one professional staff. That's at the beginning. That takes the universe of 2,500 museums down to roughly 1,000.
Of the people who then put in applications for projects—this is a rough figure, and Ms. Elliot Sherwood would have a more exact figure—only about 100 per year are actually funded.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
You say the shortfall or the funding gap that exists in the program is around $75 million per year. I believe that's the figure you used?