Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 26th, 2017

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, all, very much for your attendance.

I'd like to start with putting the focus of the audit in front of us. It says, on page 3, paragraph 9:

Our objective for this audit was to determine whether the systems and practices we selected for examination at the Canadian Museum of Nature were providing it with reasonable assurance that its assets were safeguarded and controlled, its resources were managed economically and efficiently, and its operations were carried out effectively as required by section 138 of the Financial Administration Act.

Now I fast-forward to the conclusion on page 19, paragraph 59. This would be the Auditor General's opinion:

In our opinion, based on the criteria established, there were no significant deficiencies in the Canadian Museum of Nature’s systems and practices that we examined for corporate management and operations management. We concluded that the Corporation has maintained these systems and practices during the period covered by the audit in a manner that provided the reasonable assurance required under section 138 of the Financial Administration Act.

This just makes my day. I love this. I do. As much as people see me get passionate when I'm angry about deficiencies, at the end of the day, what really excites me is when we get it right, and you folks are getting it right. Not only that, but in the summary of the previous audit from 2007—we do our homework—on page 3, paragraph 9—this is February 21, 2007, 10 years ago—it concluded:

That during the period under examination, the systems and practices of the Canadian Museum of Nature were designed and operated in a way that provided reasonable assurance that assets were safeguarded and controlled, resources managed economically and efficiently and operations carried out effectively.

The next paragraph goes back and references 2002:

Our 2002 special examination report identified no significant deficiencies. We did, however, suggest improvements on three key themes.

Chair, I have to tell you, given the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect audit, no such thing, you guys are doing something really right over there. You really are. That's why I want to add as much enthusiasm as I can. In my opinion, this system only works when we are being totally non-partisan and fair-minded. That is, when people roll in here, and they're not taking care of the taxpayers' money, we're going to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Conversely, when somebody comes in here, and they have been consistently, over the years and decades, doing a good job, we need to shout that from the rooftops, too, because bureaucracy needs to know that this is not an impossible game, that you can win with public accounts. Yes, you can. Do the job the way it needs to be done, and you're going to be sweet with us.

My colleagues have raised some of the areas that need improvement, and there always are, but given some of the nightmares that I have dealt with over the last 13 years on this committee, this is just so sweet because it shows that we are not asking more than what is reasonably expected of the bureaucracy on behalf of the people who, quite frankly, are paying the freight.

I only have a couple of open-ended questions, and you can answer any way you want. This is as easy as it ever gets from me. You can say anything you want, and I'm likely going to be happy.

My question is for Madam Beckel and Mr. Henley. Both of you, from the staff perspective and the board perspective, talk to me about your culture in both those entities. To go 15 years and longer and keep getting things right, you have the right culture. It's not just individuals, and it's not just luck. Talk to me about those two cultures that you have. Brag. Tell me why you're so wonderful. Then, if you have any time left, perhaps you can mention what you intend to do to, again, up your game and deal with the helpful criticisms that the Auditor General has made.

Thank you on behalf of the Canadian people. You're doing exactly what is asked of you, and we appreciate it.

The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

With much enthusiasm.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead Mr. Henley.

[Stephen Henley]

Thank you very much.

I very much appreciate your comments. I believe I'm speaking for the board of trustees when I say that I believe that across the table there's a firm belief that culture eats strategy for breakfast, period.

Ours was a venerable, very old institution of 160 years. We were challenged to move from appropriation to enterprise, which was a new paradigm in a very old institution that just relied on public finance. In order to do that over a continuum, you had to move the culture barrier to allow your staff and your management to take full ownership of the museum as if it were theirs.

I'm going to leave you with that comment and pass it to Meg now.

[Margaret Beckel]

I often introduce myself as the individual who has the best job in Canada, because when you're responsible for leading an institution that holds the record of nature over time and has the responsibility to inspire understanding and respect for nature, for a better natural future, it doesn't get any better than that. Every single person who works at the Canadian Museum of Nature believes in that. We are an institution filled with people who are absolutely passionate about our purpose: the staff of the institution, the board, the volunteers, our research associates, our collaborators, and our partners. It is a culture of passion for our purpose.

Although we have had to change how we do what we do, such as, for example, more recently when our financial structure was no longer sustainable, given the realities of how we're funded, everybody had to see why that was important and to what end.

We believe in open, transparent communications. We open the books. Everybody sees what the budget looks like. Everybody understands what the challenges are financially. Everybody then is brought along in understanding how we are going to do things differently, because they already know why and they already believe in the why.

When you think of any institution, I call it the Ps, the Ws, and the Cs. You need people who are passionate for your purpose. Everybody has to understand the where, what, when, and why. Then you need to have people who all embrace the character attributes that make that successful.

We're an institution filled with people who are curious and who are creative. They're also incredibly collaborative, and they are collegial, but increasingly, they're courageous. We are increasingly taking on risk. What's been interesting as I get to know our colleagues in the OAG is that we openly and freely use the term “risk taking”, but it's informed risk taking, and this calms down Etienne and his colleagues.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Margaret Beckel]

We're not just willy-nilly taking risks wildly, but we do need to take more risks and to experiment in how we do things.

To brag, part of that includes how we share the species that we have in our collection, so that people can get excited about the evidence of nature over time. I encourage you, in whatever time you have, to come and see two of the specimens that I brought from our collection—with permission from the curators, Etienne.

One is a fossilized fish specimen from the Champlain Sea. All of us—this space—used to be underneath the Champlain Sea tens of thousands of years ago. This is just one fossilized species that is evidence of that fact. I also brought in a plant specimen collected by Catharine Parr Traill in the late 1800s. It's a wonderful story of a pioneering woman who collected plants as something to do. We now have her collection and all of the notes that she wrote about that. That's the kind of stuff we can share.

I know I went over the time in bragging, but I was invited to brag.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Mr. Massé for a very short question.

I see our next guest is here with us too. Go ahead, Mr. Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The member's question and the response that followed would have been the perfect note on which to end the meeting, but I do, nevertheless, have a question.

I'm from a region in eastern Quebec, the Gaspé Peninsula. It's especially tough for people in the regions to visit the Canadian Museum of Nature, given how far away it is.

My question somewhat ties in with what my colleague Mr. Deltell mentioned earlier. The digitization of specimens is one way to provide access to all, or a good chunk, of the collections. They are important to help young people discover what the museum has to offer. Mr. Ferguson, the Auditor General, found that the corporation “did not establish a plan, including priorities and achievable milestones, for identification and digitization of specimens in its collections.” According to the report, nearly 75% of the museum's collection lots had not yet been digitized.

What challenges do you face in your efforts to digitize and provide access to your specimens?

[Margaret Beckel]

That's a great question.

Digitizing the collection takes different components. First is having the IT infrastructure that will support the volume of data we're creating and so we recently made some investments in our IT infrastructure to have the storage room to house all the data we are digitizing. We will need to continue to do so.

The second is having a robust database system that can hold all the data. Our old system is currently being converted to a new system; one that is suited to a natural history collection, and then one that is user-friendly enough that we can push the data out into user-friendly systems that allow anyone to download data about our collection.

The third is the people time to input the data into the system. That is our challenge and has been our challenge. We have a 14.6 million specimen collection that is broken down into 3.25 million lots. A jar of parasites is a single lot filled with 2,000 specimens, and so you get the sense of the ratios. I don't know why I chose parasites, but there it is.

We have about 825,000 of 3.25 million specimens now digitized, but that doesn't mean they are available for every individual, because the download, the collections online system, is one that will also need to be updated on a continuous basis. Our IT department, led by Charles as our VP of corporate services, is looking at how we ensure that the database management system we're putting all our specimen data on can also be converted and fed into the user-friendly system.

It's an ongoing challenge. We're throwing $60,000 a year at it. At that rate it would take us a hundred years to digitize the rest of the collection. We recognize that, and it keeps growing because scientists keep collecting more stuff.

[Stephen Henley]

We've done an estimate of digitization of our remaining collection and if you can let me know where I can find about $22 million or $23 million, give me a call, please, because that's what it's going to cost.

Like you, I'm from a region and I've always had a vision that we can have digital museums in this country in the regions if we get our act together.

It has always been a passion of mine to see our museum virtually from the coast of British Columbia, down the St. Lawrence Seaway, on the Atlantic coast, and in the north. I do believe it's achievable.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Henley. It's much appreciated.

I'm fortunate enough that I'm the father of four young boys and they'll be visiting me this weekend and our plan is to visit the museum.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, all.

I don't have any other questions, just a couple of comments.

I had a constituent in town yesterday who attended a different museum in Ottawa. I've told all my constituents that we are so blessed in this region to have some of the best museums in the world. They went to a different museum, the big Museum of History, and they were very disappointed when they came back. They said there weren't a lot of people there, but that wasn't the problem. They were disappointed to the extent where they said they wouldn't even be encouraging people to go there. It bothered me when they said that, because they are fairly influential and they carry a lot of weight when they go home.

How is your usership? I mean, not so much a marketing strategy but.... As with Mr. Massé, when my children were younger, I think they enjoyed your museum more than some of the other ones, but it's not as well known. Is this a fact?

[Margaret Beckel]

It's absolutely a fact. One thing that's interesting is that the Canadian Museum of Nature visitorship, say in 2010, on average was about 250,000 visitors a year. It is now up to 500,000 visitors a year. The visitorship has increased substantially, but the awareness of the Canadian Museum of Nature among citizens across Canada is very low. When we surveyed it in 2011, 4% of those surveyed had unaided awareness. Now it has gone up to 6%. I would like to say that it went up 50%, but it's still only 6%, whereas the awareness of the Canadian Museum of History is 13%. With history, war, and all the stories, the more you are in the news, the more the awareness is.

We have lots of work to do to raise that awareness. We are doing that by sending travelling exhibits to all kinds of communities across Canada and getting our research finds in the news. Who knew that there were camels in the Arctic? That was one of our researchers' finds, and we have evidence of that find in our Arctic gallery. It's a constant exercise to make sure people know that there is a national museum of natural history and natural sciences.

However, the good news is that everything is going up. There is more and more visitorship, and we are consistently getting a nine out of 10 in visitor satisfaction. More than nine out of 10 say that they are going to recommend a visit to the Museum of Nature to somebody else. We are fortunate: we appeal to the young and to the young at heart, so we get them all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good. Thank you.

We know that for many years there was a renovation going on there, I think from 2006 to 2010. It was extensive, with $260 million put into it. It is a beautiful place, and it should really attract.

I have one other little tidbit of trivia for members, and then we are going to suspend and go to our next guest. After the great fire in 1916, Parliament couldn't convene here, so it went to that museum, and that's where Parliament sat for I don't know how long.

[Margaret Beckel]

For four years.

[Stephen Henley]

Let me add, Mr. Chair, that this was when the “temporary” income tax act was introduced in Canada.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Right out of the museum.... They probably knew that $260 million of renovations were coming, so they had to prepare.

Anyway, we thank you for that, many years ago. They probably had to move some old relics out at the time so other old relics could move in.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, the women's right to vote [Inaudible—Editor]

Thanks to the analysts for letting me know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for attending here this morning. We appreciate your being here.

We commend you as you continue in your work to meet some of the areas—I don't like using the word “concerns”—in the Auditor General's report where things can be improved. We encourage you on that.

We are going to suspend while we allow the witnesses to take their exit. Then we will go in camera for the next hour.

[Proceedings continue in camera]