INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

On 16 February 2016, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (the Committee) adopted the following motion:

That the Committee undertake a study to review the state of Canadian museums, with a focus on local and community museums (as opposed to the major national or provincial museums), and that the Committee report its findings to the House; and that this motion be studied second by the Committee.[1]

The Committee agreed to take a broad and generous approach to the terms of reference.

Pursuant to these motions, the Committee held eight meetings and heard testimony from 41 witnesses between 9 June 2016 and 17 April 2018. The Committee also received three briefs. Witnesses included representatives from Canadian museums, international, national and provincial associations, government officials, as well as organizations that work in the museum field. The Committee would like to thank all those who contributed to the study.

This report is divided into two parts:

• 1)      A portrait of Canadian museums, including changes to the definition of a museum, recent data, as well as an overview of the support currently offered to Heritage institutions by the Government of Canada;
• 2)      The state of Canadian museums as presented by witnesses, including issues related to funding, human resources, infrastructure, as well as the many roles museums play in their communities.

PART 1: PORTRAIT OF CANADA’S MUSEUMS

1.1 Definition of “museum”

The definition of a museum has evolved in line with developments in society. Since its creation in 1946, the International Council of Museums updates this definition in accordance with the realities of the global museum community. Their most recent definition, from 2007, reads:

A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.[2]

During the study, witnesses provided different interpretations of what constitutes a museum. For example, Jack Lohman, Chief Executive Officer of the Royal British Columbia Museum, added that when defining museums, the Committee ought to pay attention to Indigenous museums, as most are “not museums, but cultural centres,”[3] yet still accomplish the same role. Hank Bull, Trustee of the Vancouver Art Gallery, summarized the role of art museums in this way:

The arts are really one of the major humanizing forces we have as a civilization, especially in an era of fake news and all that … Art galleries are what help you to think and help you to maintain an independent intelligence.[4]

In his testimony, René Rivard, Chairman of Cultura, explained that museums have evolved over time. He classifies them in three different categories:

• “Objects museology,” the most well-known and earliest type, in which museums are understood as buildings that present collections to visitors;
• Followed by the development of “subjects museology,”which focuses on themes and includes interpretation centres and ecomuseums;
• The most recent category, “ideas and issues museology,” focuses on issues that affect society, such as climate change and human rights. This category includes citizen and conscience museums.[5]

As explained by Mr. Rivard, institutions corresponding to each of these categories continue to exist.

Henry Kim, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Aga Khan Museum, said that in the case of his institution, they are “a hybrid between objects and performances” because “you cannot draw a distinction between what is visual and what is living.”[6] Gail Lord, Co-founder and President of Lord Cultural Resources Inc, agreed that museums have changed:

[They are no longer only] “keepers of old stuff” … They’re places where young people go to experience the real material history of their lives, their new lives if they’re immigrants, their family lives if they’re settled for a while, and their changing lives, because the lives of all Canadians are changing. So museums are really places where you can measure change, where you feel change.[7]

Additionally, Heidi Reitmaier, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Museum of Contemporary Art Toronto Canada, described museums as:

[V]estibules where an exchange between art, artists, and visitors happen. Our job as professionals really is to create relevant spaces that ensure that museums reflect the world we're in and the diversity and plurality.[8]

1.2 Statistical Overview of Canadian Museums

In 2018, the Department of Canadian Heritage released the results of its most recent survey of heritage institutions, the Government of Canada Survey of Heritage Institutions: 2017 report. The 2017 survey summarizes financial and operating data on not‐for‐profit heritage institutions in Canada for the 2015 calendar year. The report contains data on 1820 heritage institutions, or 68% of the entire not-for-profit heritage sector. Regarding term “not-for-profit heritage institution,” the Department includes traditional museums, art galleries, historic sites, zoos and botanical gardens.[9]

The 2017 survey noted that there were approximately 2,700 not-for-profit heritage institutions in Canada,[10] an increase of 100 since the 2015 survey.[11]

The 2017 survey also noted that not‐for‐profit heritage institutions in Canada generated over $2.5 billion in revenue in 2015, an approximate 23% increase over 2011.[12] Heritage institutions generated revenue from three sources: public funds, donations and commercial activities. The data indicates that public funds (from all levels of government) account for 49% ($549 million) of museum revenues, while the percentage of revenue from donations, gifts and other sources of unearned revenue is approximately 21% (146.7 million) of their revenue.[13]

Art galleries generate approximately 38% of their revenue from public funds ($214.7 million) while the percentage of revenue from donations, gifts and other sources of unearned revenues is approximately 24% ($136 million) of their revenue.[14]

In terms of staff, the 2017 survey shows that part-time employees (11,677) in museums and art galleries outnumber full time employees (7,336).[15] The 2017 survey also notes that the most recent data shows that in 2015, 64,949 museum volunteers worked over 4.3 million hours.[16] In art galleries, 18,165 volunteers completed over 700,000 hours of work.[17]

Finally, the 2017 survey notes that overall visits to non-for -profit heritage institutions has increased 34% since 2011. Specifically, museum attendance reached 31.5 million in‑person visits. The survey also shows that there has been a 52% increase in online visits to heritage institutions since 2011. Particularly, museums and art galleries saw the largest growth of online visits, up 38.5 million (75%) and 22.3 million (117%) respectively since 2011.[18]

1.3 Overview of Government of Canada Support for Heritage Institutions

The Department of Canadian Heritage Act confers on the Minister the powers, duties and functions encompassing including cultural heritage, national museums, archives and libraries, as well as policies and programs to support Canada’s heritage institutions. The programs listed below are administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

1.3.1 The Museums Assistance Program

The Museums Assistance Program (MAP) provides funding to museums and heritage institutions through five separate components:

• The Access to Heritage component “provides funding to heritage organizations for travelling exhibitions in Canada, to promote access to heritage across different geographic regions.”[19]
• The Exhibition Circulation Fund “assists museums with the costs related to the hosting of travelling exhibitions originating from another museum or from a federal heritage institution and the borrowing of artifacts from the Canadian Museum of History or the Canadian War Museum.”[20]
• The Aboriginal Heritage component “provides funding for projects related to the preservation, management and presentation of Aboriginal cultural heritage.”[21]
• The Collections Management component “provides funding for projects to improve knowledge, skills and practices related to key museum functions.”[22]
• The Canada—France Agreement “provides funding for joint missions between French and Canadian heritage organizations.”[23] Partnerships may relate to research on the development and diversification of audiences, and priority for funding support is given to projects that further the development of official language minority communities.[24]

Table 1 shows that the MAP budget varied between $14.0 million and $16.2 million between 2009-2017.

Table 1—Actual Spending of the Museums Assistance Program, 2009–2010 to 2016–2017 ($ millions)

2009–2010	2010–2011	2011–2012	2012–2013	2013–2014	2014–2015	2015–2016	2016–2017
14.0	14.2	14.3	14.5	15.1	15.4	14.7	16.2

Source:  Table prepared using data obtained from Departmental Results Reports (formerly known as Departmental Performance Reports) of the Department of Canadian Heritage (corresponding years).

1.3.2 The Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

The Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF) “supports the improvement, renovation and construction of arts and heritage facilities, as well as the acquisition of specialized equipment.”[25] Table 2 shows that the CCSF budget was $24.1 million in 2015–2016 and subsequently increased to $104.8 million in 2016–2017. As part of the 2016 Budget, the federal government announced that, over the next two years, it would be investing an additional $168.2 million in cultural infrastructure through the CCSF.[26] In Budget 2017, the federal government proposed $300 million in additional funding for the CCSF over 10 years.[27]

Please note that in 2009–2010, Budget 2009 (Canada’s Economic Action Plan) added approximately $34 million to this program.

Table 2—Actual Spending of the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, 2009–2010 to 2016–2017 ($ millions)

2009–2010	2010–2011	2011–2012	2012–2013	2013–2014	2014–2015	2015–2016	2016–2017
63.7	28.1	19.4	26.5	25.5	24.9	24.1	30.1

Source:  Table prepared using data obtained from Departmental Results Reports (formerly known as Departmental Results Reports) of the Department of Canadian Heritage (corresponding years).

1.3.3 The Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program

The Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program is a program through which the federal government assumes the financial responsibility for loss or damage to objects and appurtenances in eligible travelling exhibitions. There are no grants or contributions under this program.

1.3.4 Young Canada Works in Heritage Organizations

Young Canada Works in Heritage Organizations is a summer employment program that enables students to:

• find summer jobs or short-term jobs in order to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to work in the heritage sector and to increase their employability;
• have opportunities to network with heritage professionals;
• increase their knowledge and appreciation of significant local and national achievements and of heritage fields; and
• consider a career in a heritage field.[28]

In 2017, 1,450 summer jobs were created in over 800 museums and heritage institutions across the country. The budget for this program was $7.18 million.[29] The Canadian Museums Association (CMA) administers this program on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

This program also has a component for young graduates called the Young Canada Works at Building Careers in Heritage.

1.3.5 The Canada Cultural Investment Fund

The Canada Cultural Investment Fund (CCIF) provides financial assistance for projects that will help arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices and diversify their revenues. Heritage institutions are among those organizations eligible for the CCIF. Table 3 shows that, from 2009-2017, the CCIF’s budget has varied between $18.9 million and $24.8 million.

Table 3—Actual Spending of the Canada Cultural Investment Fund, 2009–2010 to 2016–2017 ($ millions)

2009–2010	2010–2011	2011–2012	2012–2013	2013–2014	2014–2015	2015–2016	2016–2017
22.3	24.8	24.4	21.2	22.0	22.0	18.9	22.0

Source:  Table prepared using data obtained from Departmental Results Reports (formerly known as Departmental Performance Reports) of the Department of Canadian Heritage (corresponding years).

1.3.6 The Canadian Conservation Institute

The Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) is an agency within the Department that “advances and promotes the conservation of Canada’s heritage collections through its expertise in conservation science, treatment and preventive conservation.”[30] There are no grants or contributions under the CCI. The CCI offers both paid postgraduate internships and curriculum internships.[31]

PART 2: STATE OF CANADIAN MUSEUMS

2.1 Finance and Revenue

Museums typically generate revenue from three sources: public funds, donations and commercial activities. Throughout the study, it became apparent that many museums face significant challenges in terms of acquiring sufficient funding to carry out their mandates, day-to-day activities, pay their staff, and preserve historical objects. Many witnesses echoed the suggestion by Susan Burrows-Johnson, Executive Director of the Galt Museum and Archives and Director of the Board of the CMA, that “funding will always be seen as one of the biggest concerns for museums, especially smaller community museums.”[32]

2.1.1 Major Financial Challenges

2.1.1.1 Operating Costs

According to Cynthia White-Thornley, Executive Director of the Heritage Group for the Department of Canadian Heritage, “Museums generally tell [the Department of Canadian Heritage] that their most significant challenge is to have adequate operating funding.”[33] For museums, operating costs refer to the day-to-day necessities, such as staff salaries, funding applications, management of the facilities, maintenance and perseveration of exhibitions. Ms. White-Thornley outlined the major issue with museums’ operating costs when she stated:

So much of [museum] resources has to go into professional contracts, staff, management of the facilities, maintenance, and so on that it doesn’t leave a huge amount of money for experimental work or for new exhibitions and so on that they would like to undertake.[34]

The Committee heard that museums are too busy struggling to fulfill their unique missions and mandates to focus on operational tasks. For example, Pierre Wilson, Director of the Musée des maîtres et artisans du Québec, told the Committee that “much of our work has shifted away from our mission as a museum to focus instead on finding new sources of funding.”[35] Joanne Watkins, General Director of the Fashion Museum, noted that “As long as we are struggling to find funding to fulfill our mandates, certain work won’t get done, and often, it’s the collections that suffer.”[36] Catherine Cole, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Association of Museums, added that museums do not have the resources to conduct any new research.[37]

Elaine Hruby, past executive director of the Bellevue Underground Mine, added that there is a need for more “flexible” grants “allocated to meet the specific needs of rural museums.”[38] Carol Pauzé, Director of the Musée de l’ingéniosité J. Armand Bombardier, told the Committee why it is particularly difficult to fundraise for operational costs. She said:

Operations don’t have the same visibility that projects do. It’s easier to make a project announcement about a new exhibition or the construction of a new building, for example, than to say that money was given to cover two additional staff members. Operating funding is nevertheless essential.[39]

2.1.1.2 Short-Term Project Funding

Mr. Kim noted that government funding for smaller museums tends to be targeted towards individual, short-term projects.[40] The challenge with this type of funding, as suggested by Mr. Kim, is that it “do [es] not help with the planning of a museum in the long-term… It’s not growing a museum in its capacity or helping it fund itself in a long-term horizon.”[41]

Anne-Julie Néron, Executive Director of L’Odyssée des Bâtisseurs, Société d’histoire du Lac-Saint-Jean, mentioned that despite having a positive relationship with Heritage Canada in terms of funding for projects, the federal support is not sufficient in helping the museum maintain its regular activities, develop its expertise or strengthen its role in the community.[42]

2.1.1.3 Administrative Barriers

Some witnesses told the Committee that the process involved in applying for federal grants is too time consuming and complicated. Karen Bachmann, Vice-President of the Board of the CMA, noted that for small museums particularly, “the grants can be quite daunting in terms of getting it together and putting it together… Smaller museums are faced with competing against larger institutions that are much more sophisticated in their ability to deliver these kinds of things.”[43]

Bruce Bolton, President of the Canadian Federation of Friends of Museums, added that smaller museums simply do not have the resources to submit grant applications. He said, “a lot of the museums just don’t bother applying [for federal grants] because it’s turned into a bureaucratic nightmare… You have medium-sized museums that employ people to do grant applications because they have become so sophisticated now.”[44]

As a solution, Ms. Pauzé noted, “If there was a way to simplify the process, it would really go a long way.”[45]

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage simplify the funding application process for museums, especially for small museums.

2.1.1.4 Competition for Funding and Donations

Ms. White-Thornley noted that the vast majority of federal funding for museums goes to support the operational costs of the six national museums.[46] Alexandra Badzak, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Ottawa Art Gallery, noted that the playing field is not level between small and large institutions, making it difficult to compete for donations, staff and clientele. She said:

Our marketing department and dollars can’t compare to the nationals, but we’re expected to play at the same level … we’re often overshadowed… We’re often also overlooked by corporations, which only look at the region, in that they’re not making a distinction between local and national institutions.[47]

Ms. Watkins also said that the major institutions “strongly overshadow” the small ones, instead of playing a unifying role.[48]

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage review funding streams for museums with the goal of establishing a more sustainable funding system.

2.1.2 Federal Government Programs

Most witnesses told the Committee that they would like to see more federal support for small to mid-sized museums and that they would like to see their relationship with the federal government modernized. Regarding the relationship with the federal government, Tom Beasley, Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Vancouver Maritime Museum, said that museums had more to gain than simply funding. He stated:

Handing out money is not the solution … you need true partnership with the federal government. The federal government has expertise in collection management and funding sources.[49]

2.1.2.1 National Museum Policy

A number of witnesses recommended that that federal government update the National Museum Policy (the Policy). John McAvity, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the CMA, remarked that the Policy, which was established in 1972 and last reviewed in 1990, is out of date and no longer meets the needs of the museum sector.[50]

The Bytown Museum[51] and the Ottawa Art Gallery[52] recommended that the government revitalize and modernize the Policy. Marie Lalonde, Executive Director of the Ontario Museum Association, told the Committee that “we need a new museum policy, new funding programs that reflect the current context for museum operations, and adequate and increased multiple-year operating funding.”[53]

Ms. Lord also noted that it is important for the federal government to take on a leadership role on this issue by establishing a new national policy.[54]

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage review and modernize the National Museum Policy.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage undertake consultations on a new museum policy to better support all museums.

2.1.2.2 Museum Assistance Program

Ms. Badzak said that the MAP “policies no longer reflect the needs and realities of museums and cultural services in the 21st century.”[55] Mr. Lohman proposed that:

As an urgent priority, the museums assistance program be overhauled and that we consider creating a series of networked museum hubs; that we move away from this tiered system of museums with nationals at the top, provincials somewhere in the middle, and smaller museums somewhere down at the bottom and create a series of strengthened hubs and strengthened core funding.[56]

Mr. Bolton focused his recommendation on small museums, noting that “every effort should be made to get the museums assistance program to encourage small museums.”[57] He also noted that the single project-based nature of MAP was problematic and suggested some MAP funding be earmarked for operational costs. He said,

You can only have a project when you apply to MAP. You can’t put in underlying factors. I would like to see the program add … something like 10% to every grant that is approved, and it’s strictly for underlying factors—the furnace, the electricity—just to help the museum get through the basics as well as the actual project.[58]

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage expand the Museums Assistance Program to create more sustainable funding.

2.1.3 Other Sources of Funding

2.1.3.1 Donations and Endowments

Ms. Cole noted that the culture of museum donation that exists in other countries, such as the United States, simply does not exist in Canada. Specifically, she said:

Canadians are not expecting to contribute to museums the way they do in the United States. We don’t have the philanthropic model for that. You don’t get the same type of tax benefits in Canada as they do. We don’t have the foundations with the huge amounts of money that they do in the U.S.[59]

In light of this reality, the Committee heard that the federal government ought to play a role in creating the conditions for more private donations. Mr. McAvity said that the museum sector hopes the federal government will:

Help us help ourselves. Help us raise more money, create the conditions for more sponsorship and more donations in the community, and help us get the story of Canada out there. Help us save the story of Canada and preserve it and tell the different stories of Canada, because there’s not one narrative; there are many.[60]

To create such conditions, a number of witnesses recommended that the federal government match private donations made to museums. Anita Price, Executive Director, Association of Nova Scotia Museums, suggested that:

The federal government … establish an endowment fund for Canadians supporting their museums, the idea being that it will match public donations from Canadians dollar for dollar with federal dollars.[61]

Mr. Kim agreed, stating that “endowment fundraising is ultimately what museums require.”[62]

In terms of benefits of such a fund, Mr. Wilson said that this boost in funding could help small institutions with their operating costs.[63] Mr. McAvity further suggested that it would incentivize museum donations and potentially “double the size of private donations to Canadian museums.”[64]

Some witnesses pointed to the endowment-matching program in place with the performing arts sector and suggested that a similar program be established with museums. Josh Basseches, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Ontario Museum, recommended that the government:

Expand the endowment-matching program of the Canada Cultural Investment Fund to include museums, since it currently principally covers performing arts organizations. Donors are attracted to matching gift opportunities and will often give, or give more, if their gifts will be matched. Endowments—for everything from positions to operations—provide institutions with financial support in perpetuity. Extending this program to museums would leverage finite public funds to maximize private support. These endowment funds would also secure the financial future of museums, assisting them in weathering changing economic times.[65]

Ms. Price[66] and Ms. Lalonde[67] agreed that the endowment programs available to the performing arts sector be made available to museums and heritage institutions. Jeff Denomme, President and Chief Executive Officer at the Hockey Hall of Fame, added that an endowment program would be a benefit both for his institution and for the museum sector as a whole.[68]

Mr. Denomme made another suggestion to increase private donations, particularly regarding the donation of cultural property. He recommended that the tax incentives applied to cultural property donations be applied to in-kind donations. He said:

I believe that some of the benefits that accrue to cultural property that's certified under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act ought to be considered as general to museums because of the competitiveness and certainly the tax benefits such as the elimination of capital gains tax and the extended deduction limits[69].

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada include museums as eligible organizations for matching endowment funding through the Canada Cultural Investment Fund.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada explore extending the benefits accrued to cultural property to in-kind donations made to museums.

2.1.3.2 Admissions

Another source of funding for museums is through admission fees. Ms. White-Thornley noted that in Canada the majority of museums charge admission while some simply ask for donations.[70] Ms. Lord contended that:

The most inefficient way of raising money is through admission charges. Admission charges are costly to administer. They only bring in 10% to 12% of revenue, and they keep so many people away.[71]

She added that “the whole question of how we charge, and why we charge, and what we charge for needs to be looked at.”[72]

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage support the undertaking of a study on admission fees and policies and their impact on museum attendance, including by diverse and underrepresented groups.

2.2 Human resources

The people who work and volunteer in museums across Canada were an important part of the Committee’s discussion on the state of Canadian museums. What became apparent throughout the testimony was that despite the drive and passion of the tens of thousands of museum employees and volunteers, many small to mid-sized museums are struggling to retain, recruit, and train their staff and volunteers.

2.2.1 Staff Retention

Ms. Price noted that museums rely on their knowledgeable and passionate staff. She said:

Museums have traditionally relied very heavily on the goodwill, expertise, and passion of the individuals engaged in supporting their work. It could be argued that no museum is sustainable without the substantial goodwill contributions of its personnel.[73]

Despite this passion, many witnesses noted that a major challenge for small to mid-sized museums is the retention of professional staff. Indeed, Ms. Bachmann described the situation as a crisis:

Most museums have lost or are losing their curators and experts; in the eyes of many in the museum world, this is evidence of a crisis. Without curators or experts able to understand and interpret the museum collections, they are nothing. There is an urgent need to provide a greater range and a greater number of training opportunities for museums and museum professionals.[74]

Witnesses said the staffing challenges faced by small to mid-sized museums include job security, low salaries and lack of benefits. Ms. Pauzé stated that “jobs are temporary and unstable, which creates employment instability.”[75]

Ms. Watkins agreed that the creation of a permanent team is one the main challenges faced by many museums.[76] She also noted that job insecurity, low wages, short project time frames, and lack of benefits all make hiring and retaining employees a “major challenge and an ongoing juggling exercise.”[77]

Nika Collison, Executive Director of the Haida Gwai Museum, also mentioned the issue of low wages. She said that many positions are grant-dependent, and are often “grossly underpaid.”[78] She stressed that museum staff are absolutely overworked, underpaid, and underdeveloped.[79]

Mr. Wilson also noted that there is a lack of benefits and pension plans for small and mid-sized museums.[80]

2.2.2 Recruitment

Closely linked to the challenges listed above regarding the retention of staff are the challenges related to the recruitment of staff. Ms. Pauzé remarked, “It is hard to recruit staff and salaries are low.”[81] Guylaine Perron, Executive Director of the Louis-Hémon Museum, added that it is increasingly difficult to find professionals to occupy the more specialized positions.[82]

Ms. Cole noted that some mid-sized museums are changing the type of staff they hire altogether. She noted that “as a result of stagnant or reduced operating budgets,” museums are reducing the number of specialized curatorial and conservation positions to make room for marketing, fundraising, communications, and new technology positions.[83] Consequently, museums have an increasingly limited ability to preserve artifacts in their collections due to the lack of trained conservation staff.[84] Ms. Bachmann echoed this, noting that “[m]ost museums have lost or are losing their curators and experts.”[85]

Ms. Lord added that the lack of job security has prompted many Canadian museum professionals to seek employment outside of Canada. She said:

There is absolutely no job security … we are losing talented people outside the country. We’re not retaining talent … very few museum and cultural leaders are in fact Canadian, or even Canadian residents … for lack of a career path and career development, we wind up in a very, very perilous situation with respect to who’s leading our institutions and who understands Canada.[86]

Mr. Basseches affirmed this statement, adding that the senior managers in museums, particularly larger museums, are not necessarily from Canada.[87]

2.2.3 Training

Mr. Rivard said that a “professionalization of museum workers”[88] has occurred over the last 40 years. He also noted that museology university programs have shifted to target training in bigger museums, leaving some employees ill-prepared to work in smaller museums.[89] Ms. Bachmann added that the skills needed to work in the museum sector are also evolving to encompass a wide range of business management, fundraising expertise, and new technologies.[90]

As a solution, Ms. Price suggested:

There is a profound need for a national training strategy for museum workers in Canada. We must do a better job of providing training support in a manner accessible to all museum personnel. As the old guard steps back from their custodial role of Canadian heritage, a new generation must be supported and given the tools and knowledge they need to carry museums forward and be the accountable, effective public organizations Canadians expect them to be.[91]

More specifically, the need for digital training among museum staff was raised. Ms. Badzak noted that “In terms of copyright and new digital skills, there is no doubt that the digital world and all of the changing social media platforms are forcing galleries to rethink the skill sets needed for all of their positions…”[92] Ms. Pauzé agreed, stating that digital training in the regions is also needed for museum staff to make the shift to digital in museology and management.[93]

Mr. Rivard suggested that the federal government, the CMA and provincial bodies could collaborate to build a training program that could be accessed online and made available to staff, retirees and volunteers.[94]

Other training that witnesses suggested could be useful for all museums includes cultural leadership[95] and management[96] training.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage task the Canadian Conservation Institute to collaborate with the museum sector and post‑secondary institutions to: i) develop a steady supply of museum professionals and specialists; ii) train museum volunteers and board members; iii) offer digital courses for catalogue collections; iv) offer distance learning and online training for museum staff and volunteers, with a particular focus on the needs of small and/or rural museums and v) establish a peer-to-peer mentorship program. These initiatives should use the Clore Leadership Programme (United Kingdom) and the Getty Leadership Institute (United States) as models.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage collaborate with the Canadian Museums Association and provincial museum associations to build relevant online training programs, including digital and copyright literacy for staff and volunteers.

2.2.4 Peer-to-Peer Mentoring

The staffing challenges raised to the Committee appear to be largely within smaller to mid-sized museums. Mr. McAvity told the Committee that the larger museums do not face the same challenges. He said:

[Canada is] very fortunate to have very well-established and very professional national museums. They have tremendous collections. They have tremendous expertise. That expertise needs to be shared much more than it is.[97]

Regarding staffing and offering competitive wages, Ms. Badzak noted that “[i]t’s extremely hard for us to attract and retain staff when we have these great national organizations.”[98]

The need for collaboration and sharing of expertise between museums was raised by a number of witnesses. Mr. McAvity, for example, said:

Expertise needs to be shared much more than it is. The Canadian Museum of History, for example, does an excellent job on training and on sharing its expertise. We would like to see that put in place with all the other national museums as well.[99]

Mr. Basseches proposed a peer-to-peer talent mentoring program for the museum sector:

Right now, the talent pipeline for key leadership and curatorial jobs in Canadian museums is not robust. Large museums often look abroad for talent, and emerging professionals regularly head to American and European institutions to develop their skills. Creating new programs and scaling up existing ones that encourage seasoned museum leaders to mentor emerging professionals would enhance strong domestic museum leadership capacity for the future.[100]

He added that the federal government could play a role in building a program in which senior museum personnel are partnered with employees who are emerging talents at different levels of the institution.[101]

This idea was supported by Heidi Reitmaier, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Toronto, who said that the federal government could play a role into creating a system “that allows for the growth of mentorship and leadership, as well as helping to diversify the museum field in Canada to reflect the complexity and brilliance of this country.”[102]

2.2.5 Youth Employment and Young Professionals

Some witnesses mentioned that attracting young professionals and students can be a challenge for small to mid-sized museums. Ms. Pauzé noted that “qualified young people are leaving the regions for larger centres. Ms. Price noted that attracting young professionals to work in the museum sector is difficult due to limited resources. She stated:

As strained resources have been stretched thinner, hiring young professionals to begin the professional development process of learning management and curatorial roles has faltered. Salary levels in museums are typically poor in comparison with national averages, in particular in relation to the complex skill sets required and time commitment needed beyond regular work hours.[103]

Kim Reinhardt, the General Manager of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, noted that her organization has had success hiring young people through the Young Canada Works (YCW) program. She added that every year the YCW is a “huge benefit” to the Maritime Museum by enabling them to bring in young people with unique expertise.[104]

Mr. Bolton also mentioned that the Canadian Federation of Friends of Museums strongly supports the YCW, but urged the government to increase the program’s funding. He said:

Small museums depend on whatever summer staff they can afford, and in this regard we recommend that a means test be applied so that some of the smaller museums can receive 100% of financing as opposed to the current 75%.[105]

2.2.6 Volunteers

The Committee heard that the museum sector in Canada “relies heavily on volunteers.”[106] Mr. Bolton told the Committee that over 106,000 volunteers contribute over 5.6 million hours per year to help heritage institutions, museums, and art galleries to meet their mandate across Canada.[107]

Ms. White-Thornley noted that although the total number of volunteers has increased by 10% in the 2015 Survey of Heritage Institutions, volunteers are providing slightly fewer hours.[108] Ms. White Thornley suggested that the reason for this trend is that museum volunteers are an aging workforce. This presents a significant challenge for the museum sector as the number of volunteers outnumbers the paid museum workforce by three to one.[109]

Lyndie Olga Ntap, the Founder of Musée de la Femme, noted that due to a lack of resources, it is difficult to show volunteers the appreciation they deserve. She said, “we need to have the resources to look after [the volunteers] … the paid staff are exhausted and overworked because of a lack of resources, we obviously cannot look after them the way we would like.”[110]

2.3 Collections and Infrastructure

In addition to their testimony on funding mechanisms for museums and human resources, witnesses who appeared before the Committee also discussed issues related to their collections as well as the infrastructure of their institutions. As highlighted by Mr. Wilson:

The primary mission of a museum is to have a collection and to preserve it… A museum’s essential mission is to last for a long time, to be permanent. It is the only human undertaking whose objective is to last. When people give us artifacts, they want us to preserve them for posterity.[111]

2.3.1 Physical Infrastructure

Witnesses noted that one of the major challenges faced by museums is that facilities are aging.[112] As explained by Ms. White-Thornley more information is needed to assess the full scale of museums’ needs in that area:

We know that about 72% of all the museums and galleries in Canada are 40 years old or more. Many are starting to experience significant needs for upgrading of their infrastructure or for major repairs. We don’t have a comprehensive survey of the physical state of all museums, nor of the state of all the artifacts.[113]

She added that “[a]bout half of the museums and art galleries in Canada are responsible for the capital costs of their buildings,” which is “a significant part of their expenditures.”[114] This point was emphasized by the CMA, which stated that the current state of museums is one of “extreme neglect” due to the fact that, “Roofs leak, buildings lack proper heat and humidity controls, artifacts rot away in poor conditions, little research is done.”[115] Mr. Rivard agreed, adding that “some objects are lost through bad storage.”[116] For Mr. Kim, while his museum does not have a large collection, “[t]here’s work that can be done in enhancing collections management” and he expressed concern about museums that have hundreds of thousands of objects.[117]

In order to help museums face this problem, Ms. White-Thornley explained that the Department offers help through MAP and the CCI, which offers best practices, workshops and training sessions on conservation.[118] To add to this, Anne Élisabeth Thibault, Director of Exhibitions and Technology Development at Pointe-à-Callière, suggested the creation of a new program with the goal:

… to support regional museums that manage collections or buildings of national historic significance. The program would provide access to recurring operating funding. The government could play a role in preserving and promoting national collections…[119]

In addition to modernizing aging infrastructure, the question of accessibility was raised in witness testimony. Manon Blanchette, President of the Board of the Canadian Museums Association, explained that this involves additional costs on museums:

… apart from restoring and maintaining the buildings, both of which are indeed expensive, we have to consider that the clients of museums have changed a lot. We still have school kids, just as we had 40 years ago, but we are also getting older clients. Museums must adapt to those clients and make sure that people with reduced mobility can get in. That is very expensive.[120]

Ms. Badzak said that it is not just a question of physical accessibility, stating that “We need to create accessibility on numerous fronts: physical space, digital assets, retraining of staff, and accessible workplaces.”[121]

In some cases, entirely new infrastructure is required. In her testimony, the Honourable Eva Aariak, President of Inuit Heritage Trust Incorporated, presented to the Committee the project to build a Nunavut Heritage Centre in Iqaluit. She explained that “over 400,000 artifacts that depict the rich traditional knowledge and skills of our ancestors” are not in the territory, but housed in various places in Canada and elsewhere due to a lack of an appropriate infrastructure in Nunavut.[122] Their plan is to build a “humidity-controlled, well-established facility” so that these artifacts can be protected and available for future generations.[123]

2.3.2 Digitization and Technology

The Committee heard a variety of opinions on digitization and the use of technology in museums. Some witnesses argued that it was beneficial,[124] a “tool that both facilitates this initial contact between visitors and history, and leaves them with emotional memories.”[125] Ms. Price, added that visitors now expect technology to play a part in their museum experience and that museums “have a responsibility to meet this public access expectation, particularly in relation to robust and accurate information about collections and their relevance.”[126] Mr. Rivard argued that technology “should target something that museums have to offer, but in a complementary way.”[127]

According to the CMA, while the use of technology can allow museums to reach a new public, digitization remains “difficult,” as less than 2% of collections are currently digitized.[128] Mr. Wilson added that while digital initiatives are “amazing,” museums require support for their main mission first.[129] This point of view was shared by Ms. Pauzé, who said that it is hard for museums “to catch up on digital technologies” when their energy is dedicated to preserving their current collections.[130] On this note, Robin Etherington, Executive Director of the Bytown Museum, stressed the need to “enhance museum infrastructure physically and digitally” in order to help museums respond to modern realities.[131] The need for both physical and digital spaces was also expressed Ms. Aariak who told the Committee that while technology remains important, Nunavut also requires a hands-on access to their artifacts.[132]

Another issue that was raised regarding digitization is the question of copyright, which Ms. Badzak told the Committee was a “struggle.”[133] In their brief, the Canadian Association of Museums identified the issue:

Currently very little contemporary art is online due to copyright laws and the inability of museums to pay the required fees. While libraries enjoy special measures, museums are left abandoned and the financial burden is placed on them to pay the artists or their heirs. This results in less contemporary art being shown in our galleries and online, and small museums/galleries are acutely affected.

A further issue is the identification of copyright owners who cannot be located. The current Canadian law is very much out of date and provides limited relief. It deprives users such as museums of the ability to use a particular work, and deprives the public of ever seeing these works.[134]

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage provide additional funding to modernize the storage and cataloguing of collections.

2.4 Other Challenges

In addition to the issues already listed, which are related to the day-to-day management of a museum institution, witnesses also informed the Committee of other challenges they face and of the particularities of some museums. Specifically, four elements were brought to light, namely the changing role they play in their communities, the differences between rural and urban museums, the issue of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples as well as the need to work in collaboration with other institutions.

2.4.1 Particularities of rural museums

As the wording of the motion adopted by the Committee specified that a particular attention would be paid to local museums, many witnesses representing museums located outside of urban centres were invited to present the particular challenges they face. They provided various examples of how their institution is affected by distance.

For example, being in a remote area is a challenge for the Haida Gwaii Museum, as explained by Ms. Collison, “[t]here is an increased cost to living on an island, and because of that, we have fewer visits and less opportunity for revenue generation and grants.”[135]

Museums located in the Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec related similar challenges. Guylaine Perron, Executive Director of the Louis-Hémon Museum in Péribonka, explained that low population numbers are a challenge both for attendance and “when it comes to looking for private sponsorship and donations.”[136] Ms. Néron, Executive Director of l’Odyssée des Bâtisseurs in Alma, added that museums in the region suffer “from a lack of visibility” and that “being located in a region far from major centres makes it difficult to offer certain activities” or to meet with government officials.[137]

In addition, Ms. Pauzé listed other challenges faced by regional museums, including:

• the search for more independent revenues;
• the cost of transportation;
• attendance often on a seasonal basis only;
• tourists being more demanding of their museum experience;
• the low number of big companies that could become sponsors, and how complicated the process of getting sponsorships can be;
• the lack of promotion of museums by tourist associations;
• the difficulty in recruiting and paying staff adequately;
• employment instability and the difficulty in offering good conditions;
• moving and development costs; and
• the cost involved in sending people to urban centres for training.[138]

A solution, offered by Ms. Hruby, would be to have museum professionals “who go from small museum to small museum to help with strategic planning and board development.”[139]

2.4.2 Role in the community

Witnesses also informed the Committee that in addition to museum activities, their institutions play an important role in their communities.

Education was a priority for many witnesses, including Mr. Bull and Louise Pothier, Chief Curator and Archaelogist at Pointe-à-Callière.[140] In her testimony, Ms. Cole listed education as one of many roles played by museums:

Museums offer resources for teachers, curriculum-based education programs for students, and informal continuing educational opportunities for adults. As community centres, they serve as the community safety deposit box by housing important collective memories. They can provide programs to address specific social problems, integrate marginalized people, serve a preventive justice role, enhance health and well-being, and often act as a drop-in centre for seniors.[141]

The idea of museums being a place for the community to come together, particularly in a rural context, was highlighted by Ms. Néron who said that museums are “tools for raising awareness and collective understanding, as they are rooted in the life of the communities they belong to […] They are also key places for welcoming newcomers and for transmitting local culture to them.”[142] Ms. Pauzé added that “Museums are at the centre of a region’s cultural life; they represent authenticity, truth, and authority.”[143]

Witnesses told the Committee that museums are aware of the importance of reaching out to their local communities. For Ms. Price there is a correlation between successful museums and their active involvement in their community:

We find that those institutions in the province that are actively involved in their communities, that are engaged in their communities, that have a broader relationship with their arts communities and with other cultural organizations are by far the strongest institutions…[144]

Mr. Kim argued that community partnerships “[provide] the stability [and] the growth in the future.”[145] Building “meaningful connections” with the community is also an objective of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.[146] Furthermore, other witnesses said that museums can broaden their reach by reaching out to “non-traditional institutions and local groups.”[147] Ms. Lalonde stressed “the importance of the work we do with all of our target audiences, be they Indigenous people, new Canadians, new immigrants or other groups”[148] both for small and large museums alike.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage recognize the role museums play in promoting diversity and multiculturalism, and actively encourage museums, where appropriate, to diversify their holdings and exhibits to attract a wider and more diverse audience, so that all Canadians see themselves reflected therein.

2.4.3 Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

Additionally, some witnesses explained that museums can play a role regarding reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. As indicated by the representatives of the CMA, the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada directly ask for the organization to be involved in the process. Call to Action 67 states:

We call upon the federal government to provide funding to the Canadian Museums Association to undertake, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, a national review of museum policies and best practices to determine the level of compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make recommendations.[149]

In her testimony, Ms. Collison called on museums to embrace the Call to Action, noting that there has been progress but that much remains to be done:

The indigenization, decolonization of museums and, by extension, Canadian society by way of repatriation, reparation, reconciliation, and recognition of Indigenous scholarships, laws, and protocol… Amazing work has been accomplished by working together.[150]

Ms. Collison suggested that “Canadian Heritage could do a country-wide tour into Indigenous communities, with the understanding of the need for time, patience, and a building of trust” which would in turn help the federal government “gain an incredible insight into the variety of nations and different needs.”[151]

Ms. Price acknowledged that for her members, when it comes to answering the Calls to Action, “There’s willingness but very little capacity at this point to do those sorts of jobs in a meaningful way”[152] and that “There is an enormous job for Canada’s museums to undertake in these sorts of important societal areas.”[153] She indicated that while some museums are better equipped to address these issues, others do not have the necessary resources to educate their visitors on this topic.[154]

Other witnesses agreed with the need to reach out to Indigenous communities, such as Mr. Beasley who said that “it’s very significant for any museum in Canada”[155] to do so. Ms. Badzak added that Indigenous Peoples “are integral to our museums and galleries, and not just at the programmatic level.”[156]

Furthermore, Mr. McAvity highlighted the work accomplished by the Indigenous Peoples and Museums Task Force, which was created by the CMA and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). Their report, Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships Between Museums and First Peoples, was published in 1992. According to Mr. McAvity, there were many positive outcomes to the task force’s work:

It led to a lot of repatriation by museums of human remains and sacred materials. It led to a lot of co‑management agreements. It led to a training program being set up for aboriginal people in museum studies, and it led to the creation of a number of aboriginally owned, built, and operated museums in Canada. There are quite a few now as a result.[157]

Ms. Burrows added that “Aboriginal leadership in the museum community has increased over the last years, but Indigenous participation in the broader museum community is still under-represented.”[158] Consequently, over 25 years after this first report, the CMA believed it was time for a renewed process, recommending the following to the Committee:

… the establishment of a new Council of Museums and Indigenous Peoples to review the progress achieved, and address the disappointments, particularly in the face of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations and the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada just ratified. This Council would undertake a 2 year review and make recommendations to governments and the museum community.[159]

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action #67, “We call upon the federal government to provide funding to the Canadian Museums Association to undertake, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, a national review of museum policies and best practices to determine the level of compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make recommendations.”[160]

2.4.4 Collaboration between museums

Witnesses also raised the need for museums to work collaboratively. For Shauna Levy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Design Exchange, such collaboration is an “opportunity to share resources, to share venues, to think outside the box.”[161] This point of view was also shared by Ms. Perron, who explained that they had reached out to other institutions in their region to “pool some resources and marketing strategies”[162], which in turn could “attract more potential sponsorships, and thus be able to find ways of increasing our sources of private funding.”[163]

Witnesses told the Committee that collaboration was important both for smaller institutions and for those with a larger audience. As illustrated by Mr. Basseches:

I do think there’s a lot of collegiality in the museum sector and with museums of different sizes. There are ways in which museums with different kinds of capacities can partner or collaborate with each other, or even, as I mentioned, use mentoring staff to staff. There can be ways in which an institution like the ROM or some of the other important institutions in the country can be supportive of their colleague museums, which we are.[164]

Ms. Pothier added that “Medium- and large-scale museums have an extremely important role to play” and that her museum has “the necessary expertise” to help beyond what the government can offer, explaining that “We see ourselves as part of the solution, with our own resources.”[165] Mr. Lohman further agreed, explaining that they “push outward each exhibition that [they] create, with the help of the Department of Canadian Heritage,”[166] something that the Vancouver Art Gallery does as well.[167] Mr. Lohman added that in the case of his institution they have “invited the British Columbia Museums Association to nest within [their] museum and to assist them directly” as the provincial association has close partnerships with smaller institutions across the territory.[168] Regarding the role of the larger museums, Mr. Lohman said that there is a need “for the nationals to step up to being nationals.”[169]

In addition to working with other museum institutions, witnesses also told the Committee of the need to work in collaboration with other elements of society. Ms. Ntap indicated that she is “rooted in the community and institutional academia,”[170] as well as other museums, working with local and provincial women’s groups on topics of interest. Ms. Pothier provided the example of Pointe-à-Callière, which is currently working with religious communities in order to preserve their collections and archives.[171]

Ms. Reitmaier believed that the federal government could be involved in this area by “facilitating collaborations between culture and the private sector with a mind to sharing best practices,” which could include “technological advances, expertise in customer experience strategy, research intelligence, consumer psychology and so forth.”[172]

Another point raised was the possibility of creating regional centres which could serve as a resource museum for smaller institutions. Mr. Lohman supported the idea, saying:

Because of the size of the country, there’s something about having to create clusters of museums where you can have centres of excellence….We can push out conservation … where there may be a greater call for it, or there may be a greater call for our archives.[173]

Mr. Wilson supported the idea but wanted to ensure that it is used appropriately:

… every museum has to have the opportunity to live and breathe, and be what it is. The resource museum would have somewhat of a special status and serve as a big brother. If it’s done right, taking into account the resources at its disposal, it’s fine.[174]

This was also one of the recommendations of Mr. Rivard who advised the Committee to “Create regional storage facilities to better protect at risk collections” and to “Set up regional advisory boards to assist with exhibits, activities, etc.”[175]

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage create an incentive to encourage museums to pool resources and physical infrastructure, in areas such as storage facilities, marketing plans, insurance policies and other expenses.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage explore options for collaboration between cultural institutions and the private sector and the sharing of best practices.

IN CLOSING

Throughout the study, witnesses explained that museums play an important role in Canadian society and are vital to their communities. Museums are places where knowledge is shared and the diversity of all Canadians is celebrated.

The Committee also heard that as Canadian museums evolve, they face challenges regarding finance, human resources, collections and infrastructure. Witnesses from small and rural museums noted they are significantly affected by these challenges.

In preparing recommendations, the Committee carefully considered the issues raised by Mr. Lohman, specifically, how to “future-proof” museums and how to “provide future generations with sustainable and resilient museums”[176] for all Canadians.

The recommendations in this report focus on modernizing support for museums to ensure sustainability, exploring new training and skills development opportunities and promoting collaboration between all stakeholders.