Canadian Heritage Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Julia Ouellette]

That's correct.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

—which is what I would probably prefer to see happen.

[Julia Ouellette]

I agree.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You talked about qualified people, but I'll give you an example. Some time ago the largest school board in this country had very few female administrators, but they also had an application process in which you had to check off the box saying you had a master's degree to apply. Once they figured out the barrier and were willing to mentor and become more flexible concerning how people could achieve more post-secondary education, then that ratio changed significantly.

When you mention barriers, are there barriers you would identify that are like that one, in a sense? We've heard about qualifications, and I have my own opinion of head hunters, which I've expressed before. When you talk about qualifications, are there mechanisms or barriers that present problems in the selection process?

[Julia Ouellette]

One of the barriers Kate mentioned was the financial expectations put on board members, particularly in cultural organizations because it is a source of their funding.

One way we've mitigated that is by having young people join our board, and we have artists on our board. We realized that when choosing between someone who is a corporate executive and someone who is an artist or a young person by simply giving them a bye on that. We valued that they were giving in other ways, and so that barrier went away for us and allowed us to have generational diversity that we wouldn't normally have seen. It also makes it possible for artists to be very engaged, as they should be, in what we're doing at the museum.

I would say that managing that financial expectation would remove an important barrier so that you can bring in the people who can give you the content and the participation you need.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Let's go to your Canadian example of qualified, qualified, qualified.... What's not allowing them to be qualified, as Canadians, to be picked by the head hunters for interviews?

[Julia Ouellette]

I don't think it's the head hunters. I know there has been some reference to that, but when we worked with our head hunter—we have some very skilled HR people on our board—the chair of our search committee actually gave a lot of direction to the head hunter.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

There's the key.

[Julia Ouellette]

We as a committee actually identified some key people in the landscape who we thought were qualified. That head hunter also went out into its network and brought forward candidates. It was really a collaborative effort.

It just so happened that we did get a Canadian and we got a non-Canadian, but they both had the international experience that is important.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That goes back to the strength and training of a board, then, that is very lacking.

You mentioned generational continuity. I have some experience with indigenous.... When you talked about those in their sixties, I was wondering, what about those in their seventies and eighties, because the indigenous elders who are in their seventies and eighties play a significant part in decision-making, and you stopped at the sixties?

[Julia Ouellette]

Well, to address Kate's point, I think there is board fatigue. Absolutely we welcome multi-generations, but there has been a small pool of board members in the cultural domain, and you see a kind of musical chairs that has happened over the years of people who started being on boards in their forties. Now they're in their seventies and they're feeling that it's “time out; I'm done”. I really think it's more a fatigue factor, for people of that level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You have two more minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Going back, Ms. Cornell, you talked about the boards and training. What experience do you have that is available for boards to get the kind of training we need? As you identified, the ratio and the numbers are a more significant challenge when you talk diversely, across the country.

How can we get that training to boards?

[Kate Cornell]

Julia mentioned that we already have a kind of pipeline in the art sector from the small-scale organizations, such as my organization—which has two full-time staff and a board of 14—and that there is an automatic sort of training ground. You start at a small organization and you move up to a mid-sized one, and then you can move up to a larger institution to understand the scaling up that happens within the arts community.

There are actually several opportunities to train potential board members. I've already mentioned DiverseCity onBoard. Business for the Arts has a special program for training board members. What we need to identify are the unusual suspects, so that we don't just go to the presidents of the banks as potential board members for arts organizations but look at those leaders who might not have qualifications on paper but have incredible skills that would be very valuable for an arts organization.

In particular, we're lacking HR skills. I'm jealous that you have HR knowledge.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

There are many board training programs out there, many in small and large communities, but we're missing a piece here. That's what I'm asking. How do you get that to the trainers of the trainers?

[Julia Ouellette]

That's a good question.

[Kate Cornell]

It takes time.

We were hiring an indigenous arts manager, and it took three searches to find her. I think that investment of time, and not giving up for staff and for a board, but to keep looking, is really important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You're right on time.

Mr. Nantel, you have the floor.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, ladies, for coming and informing us of the great progress you have made toward parity on your boards of directors.

Given our discussions this morning, I am pleased to see that my colleague Mr. Shields asked you to clarify the mandate of headhunters.

Ms. Ouellette, you have clearly identified what will be asked of your headhunters. I think that's part of the solution. The government as a whole needs to set standards. Parity on boards will become the new standard, period. But we need to do this.

Not so long ago, a witness made a nuance saying that, if there is a goal of parity to be achieved on the boards of directors, there is also one to be achieved on the executive committees and in the work environments. The board brings a certain philosophy to the company or organization, but the executive has a lot of power.

Madam Chair, please excuse me, but I absolutely must change the subject and propose that we move immediately to a public vote on the matter of the Chagall painting.

My motion asks that the committee invite National Gallery of Canada representatives and other witnesses to discuss the mess surrounding the Chagall painting in order to inform the public about what is happening. My motion reads as follows:

That the Committee invite the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery of Canada, Françoise Lyon, the director of the National Gallery, Marc Mayer, the Chairperson of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Sharilyn J. Ingram, and the Department of Canadian Heritage, within 45 days, to explain decisions concerning Marc Chagall's La Tour Eiffel and Jacques-Louis David's Saint Jerome Hears the Trumpet of the Last Judgment and to account to the Committee for these decisions' cost to the public.

I think it's important that we discuss this topic today, in public. If we don't want politics to interfere with the administration of our major national museums, it's clearly better for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to be interested in this matter, precisely to depoliticize it and so that we, as specialists in the House of Commons, in a special committee dealing with that, can shed light on this issue. The public needs to know how these great museums are managed and, ultimately, whether there will be serious financial penalties. As I said earlier, The Globe and Mail referred to a penalty imposed by Christie's in the order of $1 million.

I'm asking that we vote on this now, in public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Hébert, go ahead.

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It is known that Canada's museums make their own decisions. They don't have to be subjected to excessive government intervention. This could politicize art.

Second, under the Museums Act, the National Gallery of Canada has full authority to manage the art collection. I won't dwell too long on the subject because my observation is very clear in this regard.

We trust our museums and we consider the matter closed.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I call the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Hébert asked that the matter be closed.

Then I'll put the question.

What was that, Mr. Hogg?