CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 1108

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. This is the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We've been delayed because of the late departure of another committee. We had to chase them out. Let me begin.

I apologize for the absence of the chairman, Mr. Lincoln. He has asked me to preside for him. We'll get under way right away in deference to our witnesses, who have come here at great expense and sacrifice of time.

From the Canadian Museums Association, we have Mr. McAvity, executive director. And these are your colleagues, I believe. Oh, they are other witnesses. So you are appearing by yourself. Good.

Maybe you could proceed immediately. I think this must be your written statement that I just received. Is this statement available to everybody? Maybe you could make a very brief résumé of that, Mr. McAvity, and we will then proceed.

Mr. John McAvity (Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association): Sure. Thank you.

Yes, I have tabled with you about a five-page brief, and the good news is I will not read it.

Having read the debate that happened at second reading, I see it's very clear that all the members of the House have an appreciation for this piece of legislation. What I will do is just quickly walk through it.

• 1110

By way of introduction, I represent the Canadian Museums Association. The association has—

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Excuse me. Does everyone have copies of this document in French and in English?

Mr. John McAvity: It is available in French as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Are the documents there?

Mr. John McAvity: The clerk has them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): We have a number of copies, in English and in French.

Mr. John McAvity: Both versions are available.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Have the copies been handed out? It is essential that they be handed out to committee members, otherwise we will have delays and problems understanding it.

[English]

Mr. John McAvity: Thank you.

As I said, we are very pleased to be here. We support this legislation wholeheartedly and without reservation, and we're very pleased at how quickly the government, and in particular the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has brought this matter forward.

First, by way of introduction, I represent the Canadian Museums Association, which has about 1,700 members across Canada. These range from large metropolitan art galleries to small community-run institutions. Each year these museums attract well over 55 million visitors. It's important to point out that more people go to museums in this country than attend professional sporting events, which I know is an interest of this committee, as well attend movies and even fly on our airplanes.

The issue before you is indemnification of exhibitions, which has been a long-standing interest of our sector. In fact, in the 1970s and 1980s this area was discussed largely because of the skyrocketing value in works of art that would be loaned and put on display at museums.

In the early 1980s prices for a number of works of art, particularly Van Goghs, went very high almost overnight. In fact, this is quite germane today, because last night in New York at Sotheby's there was a major auction in which a Cézanne sold for a world record of over $60 million, which was more than double what the pre-auction estimate was. As well, a Seurat sold for $35 million. As a result of changes like that, when they happen.... I mean, museums and private collectors are right now opening up their insurance policies and having to make changes to them.

So this is a very fluid situation in terms of the value of collections and the escalation that's happening, but it is something this legislation will address for temporary loans and exhibition purposes.

Despite a great many studies that happened, Canada never did bring in an indemnification program. It did, however, bring in an insurance program in the 1980s as a temporary solution. That program, regretfully, was terminated in 1996 as part of an overall government reduction program. We studied the matter immediately upon the loss of that program and concluded with a professional study that indicated the value of having indemnification as the solution to that matter.

There are presently 15, I think it is, other nations in the world that do have an indemnification program. This is really a very innovative and low-cost solution to allow great works of art to circulate to Canada and within Canada. We're very pleased with the plan that has been put forward.

• 1115

There are a number of benefits to this type of legislation, not the least of which is the economic benefit of helping to cover the costs for major exhibitions that happen in museums. I think it's very useful to point out that the Barnes exhibit at the Art Gallery of Ontario a couple of years ago attracted over 600,000 visitors, who spent $75 million in Toronto in a three-and-a-half-month period.

Similarly, in Quebec this past summer the Rodin.... I excuse the brief; there's an error here that does say the Renoir exhibition. The Renoir was in Ottawa at the National Gallery. The Rodin in Quebec was the largest-attended art exhibition in any country in the world last year. It was an economic, cultural, and educational success.

So these exhibitions have a great amount of financial value for the communities to which they travel. And it is our interest to have more exhibitions and more circulation within Canada of these types of works of art. Hence, the indemnification legislation.

As I said, we are very much in support of this legislation, and really our first recommendation is that this legislation receive very speedy passage. We would like to see it in place as soon as possible so the value and the opportunity will not be lost.

There are a couple of concerns that we do have, but we do not ask you to slow down the legislation for amendments at this time. The concerns we have are really of a technical nature—and I'm speaking just on behalf of my organization at this point.

The first concern is the overall limit that is set in the legislation as $1.5 billion in any fiscal year. We would prefer to see that be similar to legislation in other countries, which is $1.5 billion at any one time. The reality is that a limit of $1.5 billion in a fiscal year could be used up very quickly in only three or four exhibitions if they received the maximum coverage.

To be quite honest with you, we really would like to see this legislation passed as soon as possible, and we would ask that in about three years' time the bill be reviewed so as at that point to profit from the experience we will have had with the legislation and look at some changes that may be considered at that time.

The other area of concern we have had has been in the area of the minimum value of exhibitions. Again, we do not ask you to amend the legislation at this point, but it is something I think we need to keep our eye on. The issue, frankly, is not one so much of the financial value of each exhibition as it is of the standards of quality, security, environmental control, and care and handling of the exhibitions. Because in reality this is really a program of risk management that is being sponsored. Consequently, we would like to be consulted when the regulations do come forward, because much of that detail will be found in the regulations.

We would also urge that under clause 4 of this legislation, which provides for expert advice for the minister in the implementation of this legislation, wherever possible museum professionals be engaged in that advice or sit on a panel, should an administrative advisory panel be established.

In short, as I said, we wholeheartedly endorse this legislation. We're very pleased with the speed of its progress through the House and what it will mean to the museum community. I've summarized on the last page some of these benefits.

First of all, the legislation will allow for cost savings. Museums will save significant moneys from not having to buy very costly insurance. Second, it's very low cost. It will not cost the federal government any money unless there is a claim, whereas the previous insurance program that was in place actually cost the government over $6 million. So this is, I think, a very innovative approach to managing a fairly manageable and safe risk.

• 1120

One of the other benefits that is important to point out is the attractiveness that indemnification offers. Lenders from other countries often are not cognizant of our insurance programs, but what they do understand is the stamp of the Government of Canada saying that the government guarantees this kind of loan. This is particularly the case of people from east European or other countries.

I've mentioned the economic impact this legislation will have by helping to ensure more travelling exhibitions, not fewer. The other benefit that's important to point out is that this legislation will encourage museums to have and to maintain the highest standards of care. In that light, I think it's important to briefly say that the museums in Canada are regarded around the world as in fact being leaders and having the highest standards, and our system is frequently admired. I remember just a few years ago Canada hosted in Quebec the International Council of Museums, which was a large conference. It was the first time it's ever been held in North America, and it was held here because of the reputation of the Canadian museum community.

Mr. Chair, that really concludes the comments I have. I'd be delighted to answer questions when the time comes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you very much for your evidence.

There are two other witnesses on the same general subject matter. I wonder if it would not be better to have them make their presentations, because I think the questions will tend to concentrate on the same issues. So I would ask if Madame Archambault, Mr. Perron, and Mr. Amadei could give their statements, and then we would open for questioning.

[Translation]

Are we all agreeable to proceeding this way? I think that it will allow us to gain some time and focus the questions on the key elements of the presentation.

If we all agree, we will go now to Ms. Archambault, please.

Ms. Danièle Archambault (Montreal Museum of Fine Arts): Good morning. We at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts view the draft Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act in a favourable light. This new measure will free up a portion of the budgets we usually earmark for insurance premiums. We will be able to inject the money we save into other areas of the Museum's activities. Such savings would for the most part benefit our outreach, research, curatorial and educational efforts.

The bill, as presented, generally meets the needs of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts fairly well and, we believe, those of other museums in the country. However, two amendments could be made which would increase the scope of coverage and promote a better understanding of the bill.

The definition of "exposition itinérante" in subclause (a) of section 2 of the French version of the bill could be more specific and better reflect the content of the English. We suggest that the phrase

[English]

the total fair market value of the objects in the exhibition that are borrowed from outside Canada exceeds the total fair market value of those borrowed from inside Canada

[Translation]

be translated into French as follows:

la juste valeur marchande totale des objets de l'exposition qui sont empruntés à l'étranger dépasse celle des objets empruntés au Canada.

When we at the Museum looked at the bill, a number of questions were raised regarding the translation. We gathered from our discussions that there is perhaps a problem of interpretation, and we think that our suggestion might clarify the situation.

The bill provides for a maximum indemnification per fiscal year of $1.5 billion. We are concerned that this annual ceiling, although it may seem very high at first glance, is not sufficient. More and more Canadian museums are interested in organizing major exhibitions or in having foreign exhibitions visit Canada. The total value of these exhibitions is often high, so four or five major shows could use up all the government coverage.

It would be unfortunate if the government, to avoid penalizing museums as a whole, diluted its indemnification program and allotted more or less substantial portions of indemnities to the museum community. The main objective of the bill, which is to promote the circulation of and access to major national and international collections, would be met to a much lesser extent.

• 1125

We are therefore asking you to amend the bill, by abolishing the concept of maximum coverage per fiscal year and adopting the idea presented last spring of simultaneous maximum coverage, that is, $1.5 billion at all times. That way, more Canadian museums would have access to the indemnification program, and their effectiveness would be improved in their respective areas.

Lastly, we would like to call a final and somewhat technical point to your attention. When the bill comes into effect, museums will have to ensure that vendors—be they institutional or private—accept the government coverage. To do so, they will have to present an insurance contract to them, to show them the type of coverage to which they will be entitled. The wording of the contract summary will be pivotal. We therefore ask that the summary be clear, include any possible exclusions, and specify the terms of payment in the event of total or partial damage. It must be as similar as possible to an insurance contract issued by a specialized firm. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman: Mr. Perron, please.

Mr. Michel Perron (General Director, Société des musées québécois): First of all, if I may, Mr. Vice-Chair, I would like to tell you how pleased I am to be able to participate, on behalf of the Société des musées québécois, in the consultations of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with respect to Bill C-64, legislation which creates an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions shown in Canada.

Furthermore, I would also like to point out that the brief statement which I will now be making will be forwarded to you, in writing, within 24 hours. I apologize for this delay.

At the outset, I would like to state that the Quebec museum sector is extremely interested in this legislation. The museologists with whom we consulted and who we represent—we have more than 220 members from museums and museum-related institutions of different types, as well as more than 500 individual members, museum specialists—told us that they were in favour of this bill and, considering its importance, hoped that it would be implemented as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, we think that it is important to point out certain issues that arise from this legislation and indicate some amendments that we feel are essential. In our opinion, these amendments would improve the impact of the initial undertaking, broadening it to include a greater number of museum institutions and, as a result, enabling more citizens across the country to enjoy the wealth and individuality of their heritage, and have access, through the international exhibitions, to true treasures that otherwise would not be accessible to them. I'm referring, of course, to major works of art but also to various artifacts and to the more abstract and nonetheless important value of intellectual content and messages conveyed.

We must not forget that the museum is also, and this is becoming increasingly true, an important democratic undertaking that reflects values such as open-mindedness and tolerance. The significant number of visitors to museums, namely 14,8 million visitors last year for Quebec institutions alone, indicates that both citizens and tourists view museum visits more and more as an indispensable part of their cultural and societal life.

However, as we all know, the financial situation of museums has declined significantly over the past ten years as a result of our struggling economy and measures which governments were forced to take. This situation significantly slowed down the wonderful gains that had been made in the museum sector. Nevertheless, we believe it is now time to take strong measures to rectify the situation.

Consequently, we are delighted that Bill C-64 has arrived at this crucial point. We would like to make the following suggestions so that this bill can achieve its full potential.

First of all, a my colleagues stated, we would suggest that the amount of $1.5 billion, as provided in the bill, not be earmarked for one fiscal year in particular. Rather, we would suggest that this amount be spent on a continuous basis, so as to avoid creating a glut during extremely productive periods. For example, we know that the new millennium will be a time when many events will be taking place, and so on and so forth.

• 1130

Furthermore, it would be good to conduct a review within three years to determine whether or not this $1.5 billion amount should simply be raised so as not to exclude very important projects that may be developed.

Our second observation pertains to the regulations, but given its importance we feel that we should discuss it right now. According to the regulations, in order for an exhibition to be eligible, its minimum insurable value must be $500,000. We could refer to this as a $500,000 ceiling. We are recommending that this amount be $100,000 instead. This is a very important change and it will make indemnification accessible to a greater number of museum institutions that produce very pertinent and interesting exhibitions which simply have a more modest insurable value. Such an adjustment would have a very positive impact on the current dynamics of travelling exhibitions and, of course, more people would be able to enjoy them as a result.

We also have some questions with respect to the wording of subclauses 5(b)(ii) and 5(b)(iii). In our opinion, it is very important that the criteria pertaining to the educational and professional quality of the exhibition—here I refer to subclause (ii)—as well as the significance and relevance to Canadians of the exhibition's theme and contents—here I refer to subclause (iii)—continue to be a matter to be decided by the museums themselves and by the professionals who work there. Whenever necessary, we would suggest that peer committees be used to assist a minister who must choose which undertaking is the most relevant.

Because of the energy that goes into the preparation of travelling exhibitions, the costs involved in such an undertaking and the visibility that institutions get from such exhibitions, museums already exercise a great deal of judgment when it comes to matters pertaining to public interest, intellectual value and ethical considerations before they even get involved in such projects. We feel that the Canadian way of doing things, up until now, has served people very well.

Accordingly, we hope that our comments will be considered so that Bill C-64 will meet all our expectations.

Once again, I would like to state that we are very enthusiastic about this bill and we would like to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for listening to us. I want you to know that the Société des musées québécois is paying close attention and would be prepared to cooperate in any way that you see fit. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you very much.

[English]

We've completed the formal presentation. We'll follow our regular order of procedure. I'll ask the spokesman for the official opposition, Mr. Mark, to commence the questions, please.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me thank our witnesses for being here this morning. There's no doubt this is needed legislation. I have no problem with the proposed amendments to increase the floor to $1.5 billion, but my concern is that this amendment may create a problem in getting it through the House.

As you know, summer recess is not far away, and not only have we just read it the second time, we still have the report and third reading. Then it has to go to the Senate. So if we want to fast-track Bill C-64 through the House, my proposal is to do the report and the third reading at the same time, if there's consent of all the parties. I believe that would be a good first step in getting the bill through. It's a necessary instrument. If we stay on focus, hopefully....

None of the legislation we write is carved in stone, so certainly there can be changes made down the road. We are now at quite a late date. As you know, next week there's a break, and we will be back for only another four weeks. I believe Bill C-64 is scheduled to come back some time in June, so we're really cutting it close.

My preference is to just get it through the way it is, and then make some changes down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you, Mr. Mark.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): I would like to thank the witnesses.

• 1135

Like Mr. Mark, the Bloc Québécois is, on the whole, in favour of Bill C-64 and hopes that it will be adopted quickly. Mr. Perron, I really appreciated your comments. Ms. Archambault, your translation of clause 2 is much more precise.

The bill states that the exhibition has to be shown in two provinces. You seem to be saying that when there is an international exhibition, it only comes to the continent once. I have always heard that such an exhibition does not travel from one province to the other. Am I mistaken?

Is there any way that we could change that to avoid the situation where the exhibition is not shown in two provinces? We know that in Quebec exhibitions are often in French; they may travel throughout Quebec but they may not necessarily go to Ontario. Exhibitions presented in Ontario may go....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): They may come to Ottawa.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: We won't make any generalizations, but usually, an exhibition in French is limited to Quebec because we would have to translate it into English before it could be presented elsewhere. This does not mean that it cannot go anywhere else, but, generally speaking, it is restricted to Quebec.

As for the two provinces, is there any way that we could change that or do you want it to remain as is?

Mr. Michel Perron: You have raised two issues. My colleagues from the bigger institutions will tell me whether or not I am wrong, but I do believe that the large international travelling exhibitions are generally shown in one location in Canada. The way I read the bill, this aspect does not create any obstacles for these exhibitions. The two-province rule does not apply to these travelling exhibitions, according to the way I have interpreted the text. I think that everything is as it should be, otherwise we could have some problems. But you are, to some extent, right because in most cases, travelling exhibitions are shown in only one location in the country.

You raised an extremely interesting point in the second part of your question. Indeed, there is something restrictive in the wording or at least in the way we currently interpret the wording whereby an exhibition is considered to be a travelling exhibition the moment it travels to more than one province.

In our opinion, as soon as an exhibition reaches a greater number of citizens by being shown in more than one institution, it should be deemed to be a travelling exhibition. The definition of "travelling exhibition" should be more generous.

I'd like to point out that this perception is not simply a Quebec point of view, and could be easily verified. I think that this rule could be very good for museums located in different Canadian provinces that face exactly the same problems when they want to present their exhibitions in other locations, given the significant costs involved. The Maritimes are one example that come to mind, as these provinces are experiencing very similar situations.

I do not know whether or not that answers your question.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yes, thank you.

Ms. Danièle Archambault: Indeed, the big exhibitions produced abroad and organized here make only one stop. There are, however, some exceptions. We are currently co-operating with the National Art Gallery of Canada to bring a Mexican art exhibition to both Montreal and Ottawa.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I have a supplementary question. I don't know if there is a difference. Some people have talked about increasing the $1.5 billion amount whereas others have talked about changing it over the course of time. Do you have any preference with respect to these two options? I would imagine that both are desirable, however, would increasing this amount be preferable to modifying the amount over time, as you were saying, Ms. Archambault?

Ms. Danièle Archambault: I think that it would be preferable to abandon the idea of spending this $1.5 billion amount over the course of a year. It would be much better to have this money as a lump sum. We know that museums often show their big exhibitions during the summer season.

• 1140

I think that what is happening next summer constitutes the best example. With all of the events surrounding the new millennium, many big projects are in the works and will be shown at the same time. Perhaps the scheduling of such events will be better in the following years, but the fact remains that if there was a lump sum amount of $1.5 billion, we would be able to spread out the coverage.

Mr. Michel Perron: Similarly, the advantage of ongoing coverage is that it is much easier to administer. We would need to make a slight amendment to the wording and that would give us the flexibility we are looking for.

I do not know whether or not Mr. McAvity shares this opinion, but I think that it would be good to make the fiscal year timeline more flexible by removing this aspect.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I was interested in your comments, Mr. McAvity, about the problem—and again it was picked up by the other witnesses—of having only $1.5 billion available over a fiscal year. As I read it, you said that given the current size and run of exhibits, that might limit us to three or four international exhibits a year.

Using a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation of how long the average international exhibition stays in Canada—three or four months, whatever it is—if you have a revolving line of credit that is never above $1.5 billion, rather than the fiscal amount, how many more exhibits, ballpark, could you have than three to four? Is it a multiple of three, like nine or ten or what?

Mr. John McAvity: If one went to the maximum, a simple matter of arithmetic, to figure it out.... But it's our sense, in discussing it with our membership, it would be an adequate amount.

I might mention that in the United States, which has had 20 years of experience with a very similar program, they've just recently raised their maximum to $5 billion at any one time.

The law says the ceiling is $1.5 billion, or any other amount that is provided for by appropriation or an act of Parliament. So there is a mechanism for some change here. My concern at this point is really getting this bill passed as soon as possible. We're asking you to assume the worst-case scenario of a $1.5 billion risk. That's not a small amount money. I don't have it in my back pocket. I think if we can get a couple of years of experience under our belt and see how this works, and if you're willing to invite us back here again, perhaps we'll have sufficient proof at that point that there is a strong case to be made for that to be changed.

Similarly, on the other concerns we've raised with respect to the minimum value, I share the point of view my colleagues have made. We've certainly heard very clearly that small museums would like to take advantage of this program by lowering the floor from $500,000 to $100,000, or whatever that amount would be. It will really only be through experience that we will give you that level of satisfaction. I hope we'll be back here in three years with such a successful program we will be able to convince you to extend this beyond indemnifying travelling exhibitions, to indemnifying all of the collections that are in museums in Canada, whether they travel or not. These are objects of national patrimony. The museums spend a lot of money to have the highest standards they can, and essentially they still have to buy insurance, which, with all due respect to insurance programs, is money out the window for us.

The real issues are for museums to maintain high levels of security standards and to be able to maintain high levels of storage space, professional care, and so on. Those are the big challenges that have been nipped away through funding reductions and everything else. That's the crisis we're really facing.

• 1145

Mr. John Godfrey: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if you're forced into this rather stark choice between getting an imperfect bill that contains these potential flaws and having to delay the process to get the perfect bill, and thereby perhaps losing it for I don't know how long, would you rather have the imperfect bill?

Mr. John McAvity: I don't think this is an imperfect bill. I think it's a fabulous piece of legislation. Of course everything the House of Commons passes is without flaws.

Mr. John Godfrey: And they're great human beings who do the work, by the way, absolutely. In fact I think you ought to have an exhibit about their great.... Never mind.

Mr. John McAvity: I simply don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater here. This is a big step forward. It certainly isn't going as far as it could, but there are provisions where this amount can be changed. I'm not too sure just how those provisions will work, but it gives me heart that there is that opportunity there.

I think this is a very progressive bill. We support it and endorse it completely. We're very pleased the government has moved on it really quite quickly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I'd like to get on to the next witness, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to cede my time—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): You'll conserve your time?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Certainly, because he's asked to speak and we haven't allowed him to speak.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I'd also like the witnesses' responses to be more brief, too, because I want to go the whole round. Will we take Mr. Amadei? You're supporting—

Mr. Daniel Amadei (Director, Exhibitions and Installations, National Gallery of Canada): I'll be very brief. I'm from the National Gallery of Canada. I'd like to say we support totally—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I'm sorry. We had you down in another capacity. Please go ahead. National Gallery of Canada, excellent.

Mr. Daniel Amadei: We support the association here in representation. In particular, we support the Canadian association for asking to pass the law as it is now and modify it later.

I'd like to add a bit in answer to Mr. Godfrey. Even in the United States, where the ceiling is pretty high, the major institutions still must have a strategy to decide what exhibition they're going to register in the program. There is so much demand, they have to figure out during the year which ones they will register so they have more of a chance, because they are in competition with other institutions. Obviously, if we had a modification at any time it would reduce the need for a strategy, but it's still something we'll have to live with in the future.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Can you identify your status, Mr. Amadei, for the record? We don't have you on the list. I regret that. Could you state what your post is at the National Gallery?

Mr. Daniel Amadei: I'm the director of exhibitions and installations at the National Gallery.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Belanger, are you passing?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You can come back to me if you wish to.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Perron: I would simply like to state that it is also very important to us that the bill be adopted as quickly as possible. I would simply like to make sure that you consider reducing the $500,000 ceiling to $100,000 at this point, as provided for in the regulations. This issue could be resolved beforehand, which would make it possible to adopt the bill as quickly as possible. It is incumbent upon me to talk about my concern for adjusting this ceiling so that Bill C-64 can be implemented in a more democratic fashion. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): We'll go to the next round. Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'll come back.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Then we'll stay with the government side. Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Three or four points were raised and we should perhaps try to clarify them. Ms. St-Hilaire's initial question creates some doubt about international exhibitions that come to Canada. She appears to be saying that these exhibitions must go to two provinces in order to be eligible for the indemnity program, which is not the case. One stop is all that is required for international exhibitions. However, Canadian travelling exhibitions must go to at least two provinces. I want to make sure that this is clear.

• 1150

The second point is perhaps a bit confusing, because, like Ms. Archambault, I had the impression that when the bill refers to $1.5 billion per year, that meant that the money was not cumulative. Hence, if three exhibitions valued at $400 million each, for a total of $1.2 billion, were being shown at the same time, there would be only $300 million left over for the rest of the year. I'm going to verify this point, but I was under the impression that this $1.5 billion amount, since it was not cumulative, could be used at any time.

Ms. Danièle Archambault: The bill talks about a fiscal year.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The government has to do its accounting and forecasting over a fiscal year. The government wanted its risk, namely its exposure, to be limited to a maximum of $1.5 billion over the course of a fiscal year. If a four-month exhibition receives indemnification of $500 million, that does not mean that there will only be a billion dollars left for other exhibitions shown for that particular year. This is how I understand it, but I'll check.

If I understood correctly, that means that during the four- month period that the exhibition receives a half billion dollars of indemnification, there will, indeed, be only one billion dollars remaining. But once this first exhibition is over, we can replace it with others.

Ms. Danièle Archambault: But that's not what the bill....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We will have to seek clarification on that matter.

Ms. Danièle Archambault: That's not what I understood.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's how I understood it, but we will check. That was, therefore, the second point.

As for the threshold of $500,000, you know that this also includes equipment. I was told, perhaps mistakenly so, that small and medium-sized museums have insurance on their permanent collections and that this protection was to cover exhibitions valued at a $100,000. The museum would therefore have double indemnification. The 500,000-dollar amount was certainly set following consultations with museum associations across the country. If that's not the case, you could perhaps make a comment.

Mr. Michel Perron: Mr. Bélanger, I would simply like to add that most collections are not insured, contrary to what you said, and most exhibitions that travel throughout Canada have an insurable value of less than $500,000.

The fact that an exhibition has an insurable value of less than $500,000 does not mean that it is of no interest in terms of culture, values, etc. Surprisingly, the insurable value of certain historic or archaeological exhibitions is sometimes much lower because there's no consideration given to what we could call the art market. The value of these exhibitions does not necessarily reflect the fair market value or the equivalent value of the exhibits, despite the rarity or the precious nature of the articles or artifacts.

We must be very careful here. A 100,000-dollar exhibition can be produced by a big institution, and that is often the case, or by a small or medium-sized institution. The network of Canadian institutions is much broader than that covered primarily by the big exhibitions. I feel comfortable in saying this because the big exhibitions and the big institutions have the means to produce their shows, although I must admit that they have less now than they once did. The people in the country have greater accessibility to these exhibitions.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. Michel Perron: Thank you.

• 1155

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you.

The second round, Mr. Muise.

Mr. John McAvity: Excuse me, could I just respond?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I'm sorry.

Mr. John McAvity: Back to the $1.5 billion, I hope you're right and we're wrong, but it's our understanding that this is a cumulative total per year. So if you did have an exhibition, in the example you used, of $500 million, then that means you've only got $1 billion left in the total. That's the way it's been explained to us. I hope we're wrong, because if your interpretation is correct, then I think we're getting what we really want out of the bill. I hope you're right and we're wrong.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you know how it works in the States, by any chance? You say in your brief that it's gone up to $5 billion recently. By the way, if we take the ratio of ten, which is usually the ratio we apply between Canada and the States, they should be at $15 billion. They are just going up to five. Is it cumulative or not, do you know?

Mr. John McAvity: It's at any one time, so it is cumulative.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. John McAvity: In the United States, their experience has been only two claims in the 20 years that it's been in place. The museums have saved over $100 million from insurance.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): We'll go to the next round. Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm fine.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Then Mr. Dumas.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): I was very happy to hear what Mr. McAvity had to say about people visiting museums. These figures obviously surprised me when I compared them with those given by Mr. Perron. Did you say that 500 million people had visited museums in Canada?

[English]

Mr. John McAvity: Fifty-five million per year.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Oh! I had understood 500 million visitors and I found the difference between this number and the 14 million- dollar figure set by Mr. Perron to be enormous. I thought that Quebeckers visited museums less often than the people from the other provinces in Canada. I had misunderstood the figure.

I would like to make a brief comment on what Ms. St-Hilaire said. The big exhibits, like the Renoir, Picasso and Rodin exhibits, are held during the summer; it is difficult for these exhibitions to therefore be shown in two provinces.

By the way, Mr. Perron, I must tell you that I was very pleased to see that an exhibit of works done by Mr. Alfred Laliberté, a Quebec sculptor, had been included in the Rodin exhibition.

As for adopting this legislation quickly, if the government agrees to the amendments suggested by the Bloc Québécois, this could be done very quickly. Those are my comments. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Do you have any questions, Mr. Dumas? No?

[English]

I must thank the witnesses for very clear, very succinct presentations, and the parliamentary secretary for his clarifications. I think this has been an extremely valuable presentation. And we share your optimism about the project and your nice commentaries on parliamentary drafting, which we'll pass on to the technical officers responsible. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for appearing before us and making your presentations.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.