As Mr. Bélanger said earlier, the members of Méduse are extremely dynamic and involved. They also all have a voice on the board of directors and they invest their time in setting the cooperative’s direction. Just recently, the members, the board of directors and I put the final touches on a strategic planning process that took more than a year and established a new mission and a new vision for the cooperative.
For everyone, Méduse is clearly a model and it must remain one, but, to do so, the hyperstructure must be allowed to develop in order to grow. So the vision is clear, the needs are defined, and the projects are major but realistic. Funding, however, is inadequate. Even if the cooperative managed to operate at 80% because of its own funds, it faces significant financial challenges mainly related—and I really have to stress this—to maintaining and renovating the building, and to keeping it attractive and visible. Without a long-term, 20-year lease from the Ville de Québec, a municipal tax exemption, and support from its tenants, the centre cannot be financially viable.
The precarious financial situation of some of the tenants and our solidarity as a cooperative is driving us quickly to think about other avenues so that we can keep our members’ rent affordable, while providing them with a stimulating and suitable place in which their expertise can be displayed.
In the brief we have submitted, we show that timelines for implementing asset-maintenance projects are longer than five years, according to the parameters of government programs. I am referring to the Programme d’aide aux immobilisations in Quebec and to the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund.
Our first, our main recommendation would therefore be to provide cultural centres with on-going financial assistance annually in order to make up for this long wait and to prevent the infrastructure from deteriorating. If I use Méduse as an example, with its current funding request of $2 million, which is awaiting confirmation by Canadian Heritage, it would be better for us if we could receive annual funding, rather than a one-time grant once every five or 10 years. It would mean that maintaining our assets would be more proactive and possibly less expensive, while providing ongoing cultural offerings and permanent outreach. The return on that federal government investment could not be more beneficial, or the national and international impact more robust.
Our second recommendation is related to the first: it is to create a designation of “Canadian cultural centre” in order to provide the country with a strong network for creating and showcasing arts and culture. In our brief, we refer to the French model of contemporary arts centres. By creating a designation of this kind—