:
I'm going to call this meeting to order.
Please excuse my voice. Usually I'm not as raspy as I am, but it seems to be going around these days.
I must say thank you very much to the Auditor General and staff, all that are here today, for this very important meeting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the Auditor General's reports on support to cultural industries, which is chapter 5 from November 2005, and protection of cultural heritage in the federal government, which is chapter 6 from November 2003.
I know we have some handouts here.
Ms. Fraser, if you would proceed to start this meeting off, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We thank you for giving us this opportunity to meet the members of the committee and to discuss certain issues that we raised in our 2003 report on the protection of cultural heritage, and in our 2005 report on support to cultural industries.
Accompanying me today are Richard Flageole, the assistant auditor general, responsible for these audits; and Richard Gaudreau, director.
In our chapter on the protection of cultural heritage, we concluded that the built, archival, and published heritage under the auspices of the federal government is exposed to serious risk of loss. This is because of deficiencies in various protection regimes, weaknesses in management procedures, and the combined effect of growth in heritage to be protected, as well as to a decrease in protection expenditures.
Organizations we examined have taken some protective measures since the publication of our report. In 2006 and 2007, Library and Archives Canada plans to move its collections most at risk to more suitable storage space that it has acquired. However, issues such as the development of a legal framework for the protection of built heritage and the efficient acquisition of government archives of historic interest and archival importance have not yet been resolved.
[Translation]
We are following up on the measures Parks Canada and other departments have taken to protect national historic sites and federal heritage buildings. We plan to report our observations in 2007. We also plan to follow up on measures taken to preserve the federal government's documentary heritage.
In support of cultural industries, Canadian Heritage and other organizations such as Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Television Fund Corporation, and the Canada Revenue Agency, provide about $800 million a year to film, television, publishing, sound recording, and new media to encourage the creation, production, and distribution of Canadian cultural works.
In our November 2005 chapter, we made observations on strategic management, governance, and control. In strategic management, we concluded that Canadian Heritage has not yet clearly defined the results it wants to attain by investing in cultural industries. Furthermore, it has not set targets to measure the performance of its investments. We believe that this weakness does not promote the cohesiveness the Department needs to achieve specific objectives and is less able to report on its performance to Parliament.
[English]
We noted that the governance of the Canadian Television Fund was particularly complex, and that the administration of its program was cumbersome. At the time of our audit, Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund administered the fund's program. The boards of directors of these two corporations had to approve the budget, the business plan, and the guidelines for the program. The mandate of Telefilm Canada, which Parliament amended in 2005, is to promote and encourage the development of the Canadian audio-visual industry.
We noted that the department had considerable influence over the governance of Telefilm Canada through its contribution agreements with the crown corporation. As a result of the administrative requirements of these agreements, and the relative importance of the amounts involved, Telefilm Canada has little leeway to interpret its mandate and determine the best way of carrying it out. This degree of oversight is unique among crown corporations.
Finally, we concluded that despite the implementation of an appropriate control framework, Canadian Heritage, Telefilm Canada, and the Canada Revenue Agency do not apply their controls rigorously enough to ensure that Canadian requirements for content, project selection, and eligible expenses are met. We know that the department has taken some measures to improve the management of its programs and activities. However, we have not yet audited the implementation. Your committee may wish to ask Canadian Heritage and concerned entities about the measures they have taken or plan to take, to remedy the shortcomings that we found in our audit.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that we intend to initiate a risk-based planning exercise to help us identify future audit work in the heritage, arts, and culture sector. As part of this process, we would like to meet with some members of this committee to discuss any issues that may be of particular interest to the Committee and that we should consider in our audit work over the next three to five years.
Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to answer the Committee's questions about these audits or our role, mandate, and work. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to introduce Mr. Daniel Caron, who is from Library and Archives Canada.
I'll be talking about the 2003 report, which concerns the protection of cultural heritage. We identified four themes in the report, and I'd like to outline what's been done since that time.
The first theme is protection of built heritage. I'm sure the committee is aware of that fact that Parks Canada is now the responsibility of the Minister of Environment. We nevertheless continue to work with Parks Canada analyzing options for the legislative protection of the built heritage.
[English]
The second general theme within the Auditor General's 2003 report was the protection of archival and published heritage. As the Auditor General noted, an element of that falls within the management of government information policy, for which the President of the Treasury Board has the lead.
Since 2003, Library and Archives Canada has completed a comprehensive risk assessment of its collection, and is currently working to develop an information technology system that will enable it to be more effective in reporting on the state of its collection. It's also working on an integrated risk management framework to aid decision-making.
Funding has been allocated, as the Auditor General mentioned, for temporary storage facilities in the so-called Zeller's building, and a longer term strategy is in development. I understand that meetings are taking place between Library and Archives Canada and the Office of the Auditor General to continue the review of progress to date.
[Translation]
The third theme is protection of heritage collections owned by other departments. Treasury Board has responsibility in this area. We're told that Treasury Board has completed its work on developing new material management policies. This new policy requires the identification and protection of heritage collections. This policy will enter into effect on November 1 of this year, and we believe that the Treasury Board Secretariat is currently working to develop guidelines associated with this policy to ensure proper implementation.
[English]
The fourth theme dealt with the definition of objectives, desired results, and appropriate resources in heritage protection. I've already identified some of the measures, such as the integrated risk management framework and strategic plan for Library and Archives Canada.
Within the department evaluations by third party consultants have been conducted on programs directed towards heritage. As I mentioned last week, indemnification was one of them, and we've developed new results-based management accountability and risk-based audit frameworks for the programs, which will clearly set out both desired results and our data collection strategies for performance indicators.
The government has invested in a number of new facilities to better protect and present national collections, including the temporary facilities for the library and archives, the new hangar for the Canada Aviation Museum, the new building for the Canadian War Museum, and upgrades to the Victoria Memorial Building for the Canadian Museum of Nature.
The Auditor General's 2003 report also called on us to complete the heritage policy framework as soon as possible. At that time we were working on a horizontal framework. We fairly quickly realized that to be effective we needed to address the issues that were specific to each area. As a result, we moved independently at the time on the historic places initiative, which is now with Parks Canada, and on a separate piece that falls into the intangible heritage category with the initiative on aboriginal languages and culture where the government announced in 2002 the allocation of $160 million over ten years. As you aware from what the minister said two weeks ago, we are continuing our analysis with respect to a museum policy.
Thank you.
:
With respect to the other study of the Auditor General, you should have in front of you a short deck. I'll just walk through it. It basically summarizes what we have done so far since the November report was tabled.
May I say, just from the outset, that I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us, but as well to say that anyone in the government who manages programs always welcomes the opportunity to have the dialogue we have with the Auditor General as well as our internal evaluators and auditors so that we can improve the program delivery.
The report is only about 30 weeks ago, but I still think we've made tremendous progress in improving it. In fact, it confirms
[Translation]
a number of the conclusions to which I myself came when I accepted the position of Assistant Deputy Minister for Cultural Affairs in September 2004. Moreover, I believe that the Auditor General clearly stated in paragraph 5.18 that she had noted a change in direction in November 2004, shortly after I arrived at the department. That's a good sign. However, we're still making progress in that area.
In the presentation, we'll try to divide the Auditor General's recommendations and to update progress being made on implementing them.
[English]
You'll note that it's obviously not a completed job. It's only been some 30 weeks, but it's always a work in progress. We're always trying to redefine the environment changes, and the needs of the cultural industries change as well.
I can tell you, for instance, that on page 2 of the presentation, the suggestion was that we needed to do stronger horizontal management in my sector, which has about 300 employees and numerous programs. I have a group that reports directly through me, which is responsible for strategic policy and planning. As a result, I'm able to have a direct influence on making sure that we have that horizontal approach. I've created research tables that are horizontal, as well as results tables, HR tables, and a task force on the impact of new technologies on the cultural sector more generally.
Since the Auditor General's report was issued, I also effected a reorganization, and my colleague here was appointed director general of cultural industries in a single place. Beforehand, cultural industries were divided up into several places with different accountabilities. This will bring stronger horizontality.
On page 3 there were comments about governance and governance framework. I can report that since the Auditor General's report, there have been developments concerning the Canadian Television Fund. As of March 1, we implemented the new structure, which had been announced by former Minister Frulla about a year ago. Everyone at Telefilm, in the department, and at the CTF worked diligently to implement a simpler, more aligned structure to deliver the CTF program.
I'm happy to report that the transition costs for the new structure came in at some $300,000 below budget, and on a going-forward basis we will be saving about $3 million annually, which can be redirected towards production financing, as a result of the realignment.
I can also tell you that the administration costs have gone down from an average of 5.8% to 5.1% over that period of time. Although we had seen this issue, the Auditor General noted that we could do better. We've implemented a plan to get better results for Canadians.
Maybe I'll ask Jean-François to speak to pages 4 and 5.
:
Thank you, Jean-Pierre.
As regards the implementation of controls, this mainly concerns the management of the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office and the co-management relationship between the Tax Credit Program and the Canada Revenue Agency. As regards the certification of files, we've already implemented the strictest analysis procedures. We now send the Canada Revenue Agency monthly reports on project certification and revocation, as the Auditor General suggested. We're updating our procedures manual for analysts of the Tax Credit Program.
All the recommendations were very serious, but one of them emphasized that we were running the risk of granting tax credit certificates for productions involving non-Canadian creators because we were not requiring Canadian citizenship. Within two weeks, we will have amended the procedures. In support of their certificate applications, producers will now have to submit proof of Canadian citizenship rather than merely an affidavit.
Now I'm going to talk about the efficiency of the controls in general. On three occasions, in the context of what's commonly called the Lincoln report, and in that of the feature film report prepared by this committee, recommendations were made in this area. The Auditor General, for her part, recommended a more strategic approach to the certification of Canadian content. As we had stated in the government's responses on the subject, we are working on ensuring that Canadian content of Canadian audio-visual productions is certified in one and the same location.
:
Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, on page 6, this is about results. I can tell you one of my first things when I arrived in this new job was realizing that we weren't telling our results story as well as we could, and I put a great deal of emphasis on this in the group.
Since I've been there, we have more clearly defined what our strategic objectives are. We have five, which go from creation of various categories of works to actually getting Canadians to have access to those works. Based on defining these, we then started defining a logic model that moves us from all the various outputs the department is involved in, when funding this project or that creative activity, to immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes for the department.
We now have a fully developed logic model for results and are now populating that grid so that we are able to report on an annual basis where we're heading.
You've dealt with the feature film report. That represents the sort of clear targets we want. There may be some doubts as to whether it was the right target or the right way to calculate it, but it's a perfect example of saying that if five years ago we wanted to go to 5% of the feature film market, that's what we're moving towards, and that's what our programs should be prepared and shaped to deliver.
I would be more than happy to answer some questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I'd like to get an idea of the situation as a whole.
Madam, I listened to your remarks on the essential aspects of your two reports. I congratulate you because, as usual, you've done your work in a disciplined manner and you encourage the departments to correct the deficiencies that have been outlined.
I also listened carefully to the presentation of the departmental people. If I understood correctly, it appears that a whole set of measures has been taken since your 2003 and 2005 reports appeared. For example, the processes of Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund have been merged, and criteria revised, and things appear to be more rigorously audited with regard to the Canadian Revenue Agency. It was mentioned that significant investments had been made to protect our collections, whether it be those of the Aviation Museum, the War Museum, the Museum of Nature or others. I don't know whether specific reference was made to them, but in talks I've had with certain persons, I've been told that the merger between the National Library and the National Archives—a field where Canada appears to be innovating—was supposed to result in better management, savings, and so on, and that it appears that is the case. I don't know whether it's actually the case, but that's what I was told.
Are you satisfied with all these initiatives that the department has taken, and do you believe it reacted well to your report and the recommendations?
:
As the member mentioned, we see that the departments and agencies concerned have taken the findings and recommendations of the two audits very seriously. A series of actions are currently being taken. Rather than state a finding, we prefer to go back and re-audit, which we'll do with regard to the built heritage question. We're getting ready to start the audit at Parks Canada.
As to the cultural industries question, it's too early. These obviously aren't matters that can be resolved in six months or even a year. You have to give them time. So we'll conduct another audit later.
I would add that, as regards built heritage and archival heritage, the important issue that we raised was that protection systems are no longer sufficient. We can improve administration and perhaps change ways of doing things, but, for us, the issue was not simply a management issue. A strategy had to be developed and priorities established, because there was a gap between what they were trying to preserve and their ability to do so. We observed that, by scattering money around, they wound up not preserving the heritage as they should have. At the time we conducted the audit, two-thirds of the buildings were in a condition that left much to be desired, and 90 per cent of the archives were in unprotected premises. There was already a quite significant deficiency, and they had to review the policy and decide what they wanted to preserve based on the resources they were going to allocate to that. I would say that it is virtually up to parliamentarians and the committee to decide that.
:
The conclusion I draw from your comments is that the department took your recommendations seriously and seems to be heading in the right direction, even though there may be other audits at the appropriate time.
My other question is a general one. I know from experience that there will probably always be more demand than there are resources. That's the nature of every government, I believe.
Having said that, I would like to know whether Ms. Fraser or the departmental people can tell me whether any comparisons were drawn between Canada and other countries. How does Canada compare to other countries with regard to the protection of its built heritage and documentary heritage? I know that initiatives have been taken in a number of fields in the country, and I believe similar initiatives have been taken in other countries.
Have any comparisons been drawn, and, if so, how does Canada compare to other countries?
:
Yes, I'll be pleased to explain our mandate briefly.
First, we are the auditors of the financial statements of the Government of Canada, but also a number of Crown corporations, including Telefilm. We do Telefilm's financial auditing every year. We also do what's called management audits. These are the two audits that we are discussing today. We select programs or horizontal issues in government, and we examine the management practices and systems to determine whether improvements can be made or whether programs are operating as they should.
We publish reports for parliamentarians, to provide them with objective information that they can use to make the government accountable for the use of public funds.
So our role is really to support parliamentarians in their accountability work.
:
In 2004, we raised certain problems. Telefilm's mandate was very limited at the time. Telefilm was carrying on activities in the audio, audio-visual and multimedia fields, and those activities were not part of its mandate at that time. So we pointed out to Parliament that that matter should be resolved, and Telefilm's mandate was expanded.
We raised another question, which I also raised in my opening remarks. The department has a lot of contracts with Telefilm, and Telefilm acts as an agent under its agreements with the department. We assume that was partly because of its limited mandate and that was one way of enabling Telefilm to do things.
However, since the mandate has been amended and expanded, we note that very rarely—this may be the only case—are the activities of a Crown corporation directed by contracts with the department rather than it being the Crown corporation that determines on its own how it will carry out its mandate.
Has that since been resolved? I don't know. I don't think so. However, that creates a governance problem and calls into question the Crown corporation's ability to determine on its own how it should carry out the mandate that has been given it by Parliament.
:
It's hard to answer based on simply two audits, but I would say the issues we found here were probably not atypical of other departments. I don't think we found any really serious management issues, which we sometimes see in other departments. The kinds of issues we saw here tended to be more the strategic issues.
In the case of the question of heritage properties—the “built archival”—I think the major question is that the protection regimes are at their capacity and are having difficulty. The government has to find new ways of doing things and has to probably prioritize. Are we able to maintain all of the historic sites we have? There's already a strain on the system, and there'll be more added every day.
I think there's a gap between the funding that's being allocated and the expectations. There are obviously two ways to fix it. One is to put more funding in, but the other one is to redefine expectations, or perhaps find new ways with partners outside the federal government to do some of this. So there has to be, I think, a more strategic look.
For the cultural industries, I'd say the main issue was, as we discussed, what we are trying to achieve with the $800 million being spent, and the performance reporting and objectives of all of these programs, and the strategy overall. I'd say, then, it was more on the strategic issue.
There were some questions, obviously, with the verification of the conditions for Canadian content and how.... The framework was good; it was the rigorous application that wasn't always there.
Welcome, Auditor, to our meeting.
I enjoyed our time with you earlier this week, in which you gave us a bit of a primer on what your department does. Also, thanks to the rest of you for spending the time with us this afternoon.
First, I'd like to focus in on the archival heritage, your 2003 report and the protection of that heritage.
Am I correct in assuming that your audit only addressed those archives that are within the federal purview? In other words, you didn't deal with community archives across the country, did you?
:
There was a new management of government information policy that came in at about the time of our audit, which was to address many of the questions of what documents should be conserved, for how long, the relationship with Archives Canada, but we found in this, I think, that certainly at that point this wasn't top of mind for departments. Archives Canada could probably tell you a lot of stories about very old historic documents that they've found in kind of unusual places in federal government departments.
There was the also the capacity of Archives Canada to be able to deal with all of this. I can't remember offhand, but their delay in actually cataloguing information covered decades, in some cases. So there is a major challenge and a major backlog in dealing with this and in the recognition by government departments of the importance of this and how it all needed to be managed.
We haven't.... Obviously, we will have to go back—I believe we're going back next year or sometime in the future—to see how this meant new policies being implemented and whether it has helped to improve the situation.
:
There's another issue that perhaps you could comment on.
I recently met some individuals who are creating an extraordinary database of Canadiana factoids, if you will, and historical dates having to do with the achievements of various Canadians in the area of sport, for example. This is relevant, I guess, because Canada is about to celebrate its 100th year of participating in the Olympic Games. They said that there was nowhere in the government a collection of information or a book that describes Canada's achievements in Olympic sports since the beginning of our participation.
I would think, as a consumer, as a Canadian, as a citizen, that I should be able to go to the Canadian Heritage website and just click and get detailed information on things like that.
Is this the kind of thing that captures the imagination of officials like you, and then possibly the minister? It seems to me that it's a shame that I would have to buy a book privately, put together by people who have a passion for history and heritage, to get information that a billion-dollar department should be able to package for me.
Earlier we talked about Bill C-18, which was passed in the last Parliament. That bill was in response, in particular, to one remark by the Auditor General. Its purpose was to update Telefilm Canada's mandate.
We're currently working to modernize the crown corporation. We will be developing proposals for the minister concerning the governance structure of the Crown corporation, its financial powers and its powers in general, all that in the context of the act.
So we're working on this file, and it will be submitted at the appropriate time, if the government wishes.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fraser, I want to ask one more general question, if you will, and then get specific.
On the matter of looking into the department, you made some recommendations on some of its programs but not others. Are those the things you wish to be discussing with us later on, at the start of 2007, or have you covered the whole gamut of all the programs in the department?
:
Let me just perhaps clarify.
The program is established by the department, and they'll say they will give funding for whatever, and these are the conditions. Telefilm actually decides who the individual contributions are made with, but Telefilm does not decide the policy issues around the program. This is very unusual for a crown corporation. A crown corporation will generally get a general directive from the minister, and then the board and the management of the crown corporation will decide how they carry out the mandate that has been given to that crown corporation by Parliament. In this case they are really administering a program on behalf of the department, which is very rare in crown corporations.
We're not saying that this is inappropriate. As was mentioned earlier, the law was changed and that can be done. It's just that it reduces the amount of control the crown corporation itself has over carrying out its own mandate and how it defines that mandate. That's why we raise the issue.
:
I don't know who will take the question.
I intend to talk, since the subject is inspiring, about the discrepancies between the resources that are allocated and the expectations and objectives that are to be achieved. I'm thinking of Telefilm Canada, in particular, which has a mandate to enable the industry to increase market share. However, as in the case of the Canada Feature Film Fund, which has been levelled off at $100 million since 2001, we're going to be dealing with declining production support in the short term. In Quebec in particular, according to some projections, 11 films were produced between 2004 and 2006, compared to 20 in 2003 and 2004. On the one hand, Telefilm is being asked to conquer the market for numerous reasons, including economic reasons, but I think the most important reasons are mainly cultural and identity reasons. Nature abhors a vacuum. If this room is left to the Americans, our cultural sovereignty will be in play.
My question is whether you can make, or whether you're making, any comments to your boss on this question. I could eventually go further and talk about the Canada Council for the Arts, which has received a $50 million increase. It receives a number of requests. They answer that the projects are good, but unfortunately there's not enough money to provide assistance. These questions are asked for these two files. What are your comments?
:
Some will say there's never enough money to meet all needs.
With regard to feature films, as you know, we're preparing our response to the committee's report. In our analysis, we have noted that the committee itself has asked us to consider the program in the context of existing resources. I believe you've expressed a dissenting view, but not on that point, I believe. Consequently, there are weaknesses in the program, as you know, but adjustments must be made based on the existing envelope, if we want to achieve these two objectives.
Seeing that we have a little more time, I'm going to be very lenient. If someone else has a question before I have the final question, I would take that question.
That having been said, I have a small question.
I understand the fragility of some of our archives. I was part of the committee that put the archives and library together. I didn't have the opportunity to see the deplorable conditions in which some of our archives and museum stuff are kept, but I'm glad to see there's been at least some progress.
At the same time, when we talk about how much it costs to keep our museums going and the amount of money that is spent, I know how little money is spent on some of our smaller museums across the country, some 2,500 museums that work with budgets of somewhere around $9 million.
I think there are a lot of partnerships out there, and maybe there can be some partnerships for some of our national gems. We have these national gems here in Ottawa. I realize how much it costs to keep things up. At the same time, I'd suggest that our heritage and our museums across the country relay a lot of interest. I hope that somewhere along the line we can get some of this in order.
I appreciate that if our programs run correctly, and we can get our national gems into the shape they should be in, I hope there is then money for some of the small museums that we have across this country.
That's more of a commentary than a question.
Thank you very much to our witnesses for coming today. I appreciate it very much.
I'm going to ask the committee to take a five-minute recess. We then have other business to do.
Also, Minister Oda is not available on that date either.
What Jacques and I have talked about here is that we could hold a meeting to discuss future business of the committee and its plan for the fall. That's one thing that I asked last meeting, to pick out one of the priorities so our staff can work over the summer to get us some stuff. I'd suggest we do that next Tuesday at that particular time.
There are two other things I'd like to do here today. One is that Mr. Bélanger approached me earlier and had something to say to the committee, and I've taken that to heart. The other thing is that I think Mr. Warkentin's motion was circulated to everyone, and maybe we can deal with that here at this time.
Mr. Bélanger.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman
I wanted to revisit a matter that this committee has already dealt with, concerning our request for a response from the government on the re-tabling of the Lincoln report. At the time, I did hear comments from the parliamentary secretary as to whether that was advisable or not. I understand his comments perhaps a little better now, but I suspect he had information at that time that we didn't have, or certainly I didn't have, the fact that over the weekend two initiatives have been launched vis-à-vis the television industry in Canada: one by the minister on Sunday in Banff, asking for the CRTC to look into the impact of technology and to report back by mid-December, and the other one by the CRTC itself in terms of the entire industry, much along the lines of what the CRTC is currently doing in regard to radio.
Given that these two initiatives have now been launched, subsequent to our request for a government response, I'd just say that I was not insensitive to Mr. Abbott's comments when we were dealing with this matter. I'm quite prepared to put forward a notice of motion to be dealt with next Tuesday if necessary, but I'm wondering whether it would not be advisable for this committee at this time to suspend the request for a response from the government and wait until these two initiatives have been completed.
:
Rather than dispense with this so quickly, I would like to read it in a slightly different way, as to how I see it. I hope my honourable colleagues representing this area will not be offended by this. “Whereas museums across Canada deserve adequate resources”—true—“whereas a significant amount of citizens visit rural, local, national...institutions every year; therefore, considering the number of museums”, and so on.
Let me read it to you this way, starting with the “furtherfore”. What I'm going to do is substitute the institution itself for its location: “furtherfore, that this committee undertakes visits to local museums such as” Ottawa, Ottawa Valley, Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa, Osgoode, Nepean, Stittsville, Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa, Ottawa.
The point is that certainly there are museums outside of the national capital region that would require a visit from us. Again I mean no offence to the people who administer the museums in this area, but I certainly would like to visit say the mining museum in Charlie's riding. I think the ruins in eastern Newfoundland are a good place. I think you get the idea.
That is my only comment.
:
Mr. Chairman, I feel a bit awkward with this motion because I certainly would encourage its spirit. I had hoped that there might be a listing in Banff and perhaps we could go there, but I don't see it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: But joking aside, Mr. Chairman, I extend an invitation to all my colleagues over the summer. I'm quite prepared to entertain you at home any time. I'll have a barbecue, and we can go together to visit any of these, because I've visited most of them already and would encourage all my colleagues to do so.
But I have to agree with Mr. Simms. If as a committee we are going to undertake a serious look at these things, it can't only be at locations in the nation's capital. It has to go beyond this.
At this stage, I think we should not adopt this motion, but put it aside. Part of our discussion on Tuesday, in terms of the work schedule we wish to consider for the fall, should perhaps address this issue. I can't support it as it is.
:
I hear the sentiments. Our hope was that we'd get some type of contrast between local and national museums to see how differently they're run. But I certainly take what's been said with no offence.
Certainly across the country museums are run completely differently from one end to the other. I would have no problem if we were to cross out the “furtherfore” in order to move this forward. Then if we wanted to move a motion at some later date, talking about different locations we could visit across the country, I would have no problem with that.
I'm most concerned that we have an opportunity to discuss museums and invite the Canadian Museums Association. I know that many of my colleagues have met with the folks from the association, who have some important issues they want to talk to us about sooner than later.
So if it would please our committee, I would certainly have no problem crossing out the more regional museums from this and talk more about the national museums. I would also like to have the opportunity to bring in the Canadian Museum Association.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would propose an enormous amendment to what I have before me. First, however, I'd like to recall that, in October 2005, the Canadian Museum Association was very enthusiastic about the sustained efforts made in this area by the former heritage minister Ms. Frulla. A museums policy was in the offing.
I believe studies are gathering dust on shelves. That leads me to keep only the last part of this motion. In other words, the committee should hear from the Canadian Museum Association, the Canadian Heritage officials who are concerned by this matter and any other interested party, at the committee's discretion.
It would be a waste of time to do tours that, in any case, wouldn't enable us, in so little time, to redo all the work previously done. We can rely on the experts, that is the technicians and officials who worked with Ms. Frulla on this file.
The compromise appears in the last line, if we add the words "the Canadian Heritage officials who are concerned by this file".
:
I understand completely what Mr. Simms is saying. I think that my friend Chris was attempting to give the contrast between the very large museums and the small museums. I take the good humour that was intended in the way it was presented. Perhaps deleting that particular paragraph would be helpful.
I think you've heard me say this before. Having had the privilege of enjoying the capacity of parliamentary secretary to the minister, I've had the opportunity to visit the archives, or at least one of the buildings of the archives, the Museum of Civilization, and the Museum of Science and Technology. On my own time, I have visited the Aviation Museum. But as a parliamentarian, I think it would be of value to go there with a parliamentarian's eyes, with the help of the people who are responsible for that. I visited the Museum of Nature, which, as I think I related, is under construction. I think they are spending about $85 million. I've been to the art gallery.
I guess what I'm saying is that my friend Mauril, being local of course, has the opportunity to visit these places and probably takes a lot of the visitors who would come to visit him and his wife, and I really respect that. But I suggest that if we're looking at it as committee members through committee eyes.... In other words, maybe what this motion might be lacking--and maybe we can get to it on Tuesday if we do a little sketching between now and Tuesday--is some ideas of how best this committee can become aware of the kinds of concerns the Auditor General is talking about and some of the challenges they face.
For example, if you go to the Museum of Science and Technology.... Here's a question for you. When you go to one of their five warehouses, there is a room that is as tall as this Railway Committee Room. And on the very top bunk are bicycles, scads and scads of bicycles all lying on top of each other. As you work your way down to the bottom, you come to the locomotives. Obviously, you wouldn't put the locomotives up there and the bicycles down below. Ask yourselves the question: Does it really make sense, in a museum of science and technology, to have that number of bicycles when if you were to do a display for science and technology about bicycles, you would fit it into something the size of a large lunch room?
Imagine dealing with a question like that--and there are about a thousand questions that can be asked like that--to become knowledgeable of some of the challenges with respect to the archiving.
So I'm simply saying we should be going to and taking a look at and becoming knowledgeable about museums. Then the second part, the Canadian Museums Association, getting more input from them--which is another dimension of museums--is something that I think this committee probably has some responsibility to take a look at. I can say that it's been very informative for me.
:
Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Simms, you were sitting here last year when we were working hard on the Canadian film policy.
We haven't had the opportunity to work on film sets. We met people who work in the industry and who came to tell us about that industry and about their problems. At the same time, we had figures provided by our analysts and other objective data, and I think we can work the same way with the museums.
However, I would recall that we're not breaking new ground. We have the work that has been done. Time and energy have been invested. But that work is gathering dust on shelves. We can recover it.
That's why I would limit myself to meeting with people from the industry, with Canadian Heritage officials, in order possibly to go further, since the last election prevented us from adopting a policy.
:
I have comments on a couple of things that have been said.
First of all, I don't think we need to go as a committee to these institutions. I think that any member of this committee who wishes to visit any of the national institutions would be welcomed with open arms by the staff there. They would give you the royal tour and you'd have a good perspective. I invite members to do so. There are even times during the week when it's free of charge. We can find that out for members.
But in doing that, we should be very careful in substituting ourselves for the boards that each of these institutions have in terms of setting priorities and asking for government support as required. There is a relationship we have to be respectful of.
In the fall or perhaps even next week, if we have an open meeting, I have no difficulty with having the Canadian Museums Association come before us, because there are thousands of museums in this country.
Monsieur Kotto is absolutely right, sir. A lot of work had been done in the past government to the point of moving forward on a financial recommendation for greater support.
The Canadian Museums Association has invited all of us, individually, I suspect, to meet. I've met them and I know others have. They've got a great presentation, which basically states there's full agreement on where we as a country want to go on that.
If the government of the day wishes to pick up that work and move on with it, it's ready. I'm sure the Canadian Museums Association would be delighted to come and tell us that. Let's start there instead, hear from them, and then take whatever other steps may be required.
In the meantime, I'm serious about this. If any of my colleagues on the committee want to come around for a couple of days or even one day this summer, we can organize a visit. I'd be delighted to host it, along with
[Translation]
the people who work in each museum.
Taking into account all of the things that have been said here today, why don't we take this motion and sleep on it until next Tuesday?
We can come back on Tuesday morning and, if anyone would like to revise anything that's here, we'll vote on it first thing. At the same time, if you would care to, we can bring the Canadian Museums Association here.
We've had a hard time getting other witnesses to come.