Canadian Heritage Committee on June 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Who's going to be first over on this side?

Mr. Scott--or Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Chair, you can call me whatever you wish, sir--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Thank you.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

--as I'm in awe of your abilities!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[A voice]

Oh, he's throwing it out today!

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I just want to point out to everybody in the room that minority Parliaments do actually work across the board, if handled correctly.

I come from the other side, the east coast, and we have a tremendous problem with a lot of the smaller museums. Let me just back up by saying that in my novice view, because I'm no expert on museums or the collection of artifacts and whatnot, there almost seems to be a perverse attitude on the east coast, where government funding available for small museums can only be achieved under the guise of economic development for creating work.

Mr. Bauche, you seem to agree with that, because I'm sure you're probably going through the same thing as I am. Even though you're on the other side of the country, I'm sure it's very similar.

Now, that being said, they tell us the biggest problem is the lack of core funding. So I want to pick up on some of the points you made, including the $75 million per year for non-federal museums. Are we talking of that over a multi- or three- to five-year period, as you mentioned? Is that what you think? Is that the intention of what you're saying?

[Dean Bauche]

That's per year, but we would see that kind of program awarded not on a per year basis but rather on a three- or four-year basis.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. It does provide the stability that allows them to plan.

A key gap is that they are too restrictive. I practically have to hire someone on my staff to get through all these programs, and there are programs I still don't even know of at this point.

When you say less restrictive, can you be a little more precise about what you're suggesting with regard to how this would work? I would ask other members to pitch in as well. What do you mean by less restrictive, and how would this be accessed?

[Dean Bauche]

Right now there are museums that aren't even eligible to access MAP funding. There are organizations such as ours, for example. We're only a three-person operation, but to access MAP funding as it is, and then to be accountable and have the onerous expectations that come with that, we become absolutely stretched thin. It's project-based, which means that when we actually access it, we've taken on one more dimension of operation.

It's not about what we're doing. Yes, we're serving our mandate. We have a national touring exhibition right now, and that is an additional demand on my staff. What we're talking about here, ultimately, is that the funding would serve our core operation.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Let me paint a scenario for you. Let's assume that here is one museum and they require two things. First, they can't afford to heat the place during the cold winter months. Second, they need to transfer a lot of their old clippings of newspapers to digital format. If they're not two different programs within Canadian Heritage, they are certainly two different programs at two different levels of government. Should they be accessed in the same area? In other words, should both come under the same funding, the $75 million per year? I'm asking you how we do that.

[Dean Bauche]

You're asking excellent questions, and I think the answer lies in working this out. You're cutting right to the practical implications of this. I don't have any ready answers.

[John McAvity]

Quite honestly, I hear you. There are these silos for very specific projects. By pulling together a multi-year approach, they should be able to design a program that meets the needs of the local museum so they can put together a business plan that shows, over three to five years, the types of activities they need to do to preserve their collections and make them accessible to people. Yes, it should be able to be done, from our perspective. Rather than have to apply to a thousand different programs, it could be integrated into a more user-friendly and comprehensive approach.

[Dean Bauche]

You're absolutely right with respect to the premise. It is seriously problematic for a small museum to have staff who have the wherewithal and the ability to know all the programs that are out there and who have the time to access them. Ultimately, instead of running our museums, that becomes what takes up all our time.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

One of the other comments was about diversified funding. I want to talk about the main contributors outside of government funding. I'm talking about non-federal museums. What are some of the other major revenue streams, beyond government funding?

[Cal White]

Typically, admissions account for a large part. Usually there are operations such as gift shops or food operations. Depending on the size of the operation, there may be other opportunities for revenue generation, such as rides, shows, or what have you. Typically, you'd have a donation program and a membership program. There are grants. So there's a large source of opportunities for funding.

I think what we'd like to see is leadership from the federal government. I think following that you're going to get the provincial governments coming on side, and municipal governments, corporations, and so on. But we need that broad base. The fact of the matter is that the federal government has, in real dollars, reduced the amount of money over the decades, and it needs to be a partner.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Can I just stop you right there? Can I stop...?

I think we're both being stopped.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, I think you can both be stopped here right now. We're pretty well at the five minutes. I want to make sure everyone gets a chance. Those were very good questions, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Malo, please.

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

Good day.

In your presentation, you mentioned a study involving your members. I imagine your objective was to sound them out to get some idea of their concerns and needs.

I'm wondering if this study will soon be available? Can you share some of your findings with us at this time?

[John McAvity]

In our brief we refer to our consultations and our study with our members. That's where we received a great deal of evidence that is both anecdotal and statistical about what their needs are.

We've quoted to you some of the real-life examples of collections that are in barns that are not heated, where mould and insects are damaging the artifacts, and the museums that are in unsafe facilities, with leaking roofs. The worst words museum people hear are “insects”, “mould”, and “leaky roof”, and we hear them over and over again.

We'd be delighted to share this with you. It isn't a statistical report, but we have evidence from all regions, all provinces, all types of museums throughout Canada.

[Michel Perron]

I would just like to add something to that. The Société des musées québécois also consulted with its members with a view to developing a strategic plan for the next three years. What became clear over the course of five consultation sessions in various regions was that our members were overwhelmingly concerned about achieving some financial stability in terms of their operations.

I've been working in the museums field for 25 years. I can honestly say that I've never witnessed this kind of financial instability before. I believe two factors are to blame for the situation: the lack of resources and, more serious still, the lack of a minimum degree of stability and level of support. To put it simply, because museums, both large and small, lack financial stability, considerable energy is expended on trying to keep these institutions open. As a result of this overriding concern, museums have lost their direction in some respects. Much of the work done consists of keeping the facility open and paying heating costs. This has become of problem of major proportions.

Quite frequently, a museum may be forced to apply for 20 or 25 separate grants each year to maintain its activities. That's an average of one grant application every two weeks. This gives us some idea of the prevailing climate of financial instability. In short, funding is proving to be a very costly and somewhat inefficient process, because multi-year funding is not available.

That's why it is important that we broach the question of multi-year support at this time.

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

As you know, the previous government initiated a review of the museum policy. I imagine you had an opportunity to make some recommendations to that government.

How much progress had been made before elections were called?

[Michel Perron]

Mr. McAvity, I believe you're in a better position that I am to answer that question.

[John McAvity]

Yes, we had extensive consultations with the community and developed proposals. We worked very closely with the previous government, and during the election we went out to all of the parties, and all of your parties have supported this. Museums are phenomenally popular. Fifty-nine million visitors attend them, and public opinion polls such as we have done verify their popularity. I think all political parties would be envious of how popular museums are.

The museum policy was very close to fruition when the election was called. Unfortunately, it was unable to move forward at that point, but literally, consultations were finished and it was ready for a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.