Canadian Heritage Committee on June 20th, 2006

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

For the record, I want to say that personally--although I suspect I could convince many colleagues--I think we should go toward operational multi-year funding as opposed to project funding. We had that discussion when you were doing your lobbying earlier this year. But that's certainly, I believe, where we should go. So if there is increased funding, it should be directed, in my view, toward operational multi-year. I think three is a good number. We'll let the wiser ones decide.

Mr. Perron, you mentioned that there were problems at every level. I don't really believe that this is a sound policy, but I'll ask you anyway, for the sake of clarification.

Should the Government of Canada tie increased federal in some way to a commitment to increased funding by other levels of government?

[Michel Perron]

Certainly. Currently, an imbalance exists in terms of funding sources. So much is expected of non-government sources that it's impossible, realistically, to achieve a balance. That's true of large museums in metropolitan areas. So then, you can imagine how it must be for small regional museums, who must work out such complex financial arrangements just to remain afloat that 80 per cent of their energy is spent on worrying how they will manage next year, or even next month.

Balanced funding is needed. As a member of the Canadian Museums Association, the Société des musées québécois believes that the federal government has an important role to play to maintain this balance. Clearly, there's a very positive incentive to turn to provincial as well as to municipal levels of government for support.

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

There would be a tremendous incentive, I agree, but this would not be a pre-requisite.

[Michel Perron]

I don't believe it could be. However, I am confident that it would serve as an incentive.

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

We agree on that.

Mr. White, and I believe Mr. Bauche, mentioned endowment. Mr. White in particular, you mentioned business plans. Should endowments be part of business plans?

[Cal White]

I think so. You want to include everything in your business plan in looking ahead. It's just not business; it's sustainability.

Of course, put it all in.

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

What I'm getting at here is, should there be an endowment element of a business plan for any museum on a mandatory basis?

[Cal White]

For some museums it may be possible in the short run; for others it may take some time to get there. It's certainly something to aim for. If they can do it, great.

You have to look at each case and see whether it's possible.

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

You'll get to answer the next one, Mr. McAvity, because it leads to it.

Should the Canadian Museums Association consider the possibility of a general endowment fund? On their own, some museums may have a great deal of difficulty building up and managing an endowment fund. I understand that. But should an endowment fund, for which all its members would be eligible, not be encouraged, created, and managed by the Canadian Museums Association?

[John McAvity]

There could be. It's a distinct possibility. It's a United Way approach. The only thing is many museums have their own projects and they would want to continue and maintain their own.

We established a foundation for such a purpose when there was a crown donation incentive, but as you may recall, that has disappeared.

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

So if it were to reappear, it would encourage the Canadian Museums Association?

[John McAvity]

Indeed. One of the few truly wonderful incentives that does exist for museums is the movable cultural property program whereby donations of certified cultural property are exempt from capital gains, similar to what the government has just done. But they are also 100% deductible. They're not restricted to a ceiling of your annual income.

It would be nice if we had such an incentive for cash donations as well.

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

The final thing is this. You were talking about a museum operator lying awake at night wondering if there's something they could do better. It's better than the agnostic insomniac dyslexic, who lies awake at night wondering if dog exists.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John McAvity]

Mr. Bélanger, I did want to say that in terms of the endowment question, on average the museums in the United States receive 11% of their annual operating income from the endowments they have.

In Canada the endowments museums have are minimal, if they have any at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm a strong supporter of endowments. I'm a Shriner, and we run 22 hospitals on endowments. Way back when, someone had a great idea. And it doesn't matter whether any Shriners are left; that endowment will keep those hospitals going.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm assuming that all of you were here when Ms. Sherwood addressed the committee. The picture she painted was somewhat different from the picture you're painting about the viability of smaller museums across the country.

Is that a fair statement?

[John McAvity]

I don't think we're at odds. I think she was talking about what programs exist, and she did acknowledge that many of those programs had very few resources.

We think many of those programs that exist are wonderful; don't mistake me. The problem is that most of them do not have adequate resources in them. In particular, the museum assistance program, which is the core program that funds museums for being museums, is at a dollar level that is virtually the same as it was in 1972. It has not increased for inflation, and yet the needs of the museum communities have grown and changed. That's why we're seeing museums close now.

[Dean Bauche]

Let's be clear that what Ms. Sherwood was saying to us was that indeed there are good programs--the community memories programs, and what CHIN has done--that are accessed at those community levels. Those are project-based programs. Nothing she talked about has anything to do with sustainable operational funding.

That's the fundamental difference between what we described here and what Ms. Sherwood described.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But the bottom line is that you propose that there be an additional $75 million added annually to the amount of federal funding that would be available--presumably for operational funding, program funding, core funding, correct?

[John McAvity]

Yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's one thing to have a museums policy and another thing to fund it. We don't know if it will be funded or how much will be funded.

I just want to make sure that we're not too optimistic here, because to have that in place by the end of the year may be problematic. It would take at least the next budget to find $75 million extra per annum. I just want to make sure we're not raising expectations that this is all going to be done by the end of the year.

I am very sympathetic towards you, given that my own community's museum actually was on the verge of being dissolved. In fact, they had already talked about having a public auction to auction off all of the memorabilia and artifacts--our community's heritage. At that moment the city stepped in and was able to provide some additional funding, but it's still a financially tenuous situation for that museum, as I'm sure it is for many others across the country.

If there's one policy that we could change at the federal level that wouldn't involve the funding aspect, could you identify that? Or perhaps there isn't any one.

[John McAvity]

In the room with us today are many people from across Canada, but a lot of people here are involved in the small museums in Ottawa. About a year ago, the City of Ottawa threatened to cut down and close many of these institutions, similar to Abbotsford. Citizens spoke out, with rallies and demonstrations and petitions and all of that.

That's part of a process by which politicians start appreciating that culture is not a frill. It is not something that can be dispensed with. It is not an asset that can be auctioned off. It's something we have and we're going to lose.

I think there's an important message there. We've had the same thing happen in London, Ontario, and many other places. Our sector has simply been neglected. In other areas there have been investments in the performing arts, which are wonderful things. There have been investments in infrastructure and bridges and so on. But the area of culture and heritage is fundamental, is part of our daily lives, and we as a society need to start giving it just a little bit more. We're being very modest in what we're asking for, and we've been asking for quite a long time.

[Cal White]

If I may respond to that question, there is one item that doesn't involve money. It's on the last page of our brief, if I may read it to you:

Simplified, Speedier Reporting Systems.

The demands now placed on programs for accountability and efficiency are resulting in significant delays for all museums. The present administrative system is inefficient and produces delays that are costly and de-moralizing. While we all appreciate the need for appropriate controls, the present system is one of over control and is costly and inefficient. New ways of delivering programs to museums need to be considered including an arms' length approach, which works very successfully in some provinces for museum programs (e.g. Alberta and Saskatchewan). Assessments and recommendations from peer juries should remain as an essential element in any new funding system.

So that's something that would not cost any more money but would make life an awful lot better for museums and for, as you mentioned, students and people who are trying to enhance their careers and their futures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We're going to finish with Mr. Angus, and then I will probably wrap up after that.