[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 13, 1996
.1112 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please.
[English]
I apologize for the delay.
[Translation]
I call this meeting to order.
[English]
Just before we start I wanted to mention something to our witnesses who kindly came here this morning. It's the end of the session for us and several of the members have to speak in the House at different times. Some of them have asked me if they can leave earlier than provided. If by any chance you could make your presentations a little briefer and maybe give us excerpts so that members can have a chance to question you, I would appreciate it very much.
We've provided an hour for each group, yourselves and the NCC. At the same time, if it's possible to make it any briefer I would appreciate it on behalf of the members.
I would like to introduce the witnesses. Dr. Shirley Thomson is the director of the National Gallery of Canada, et M. Yves Dagenais est sous-directeur.
Dr. Thomson, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Ms Shirley Thomson (Director of the National Gallery of Canada): You want me to start?
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Ms Thomson: All right.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to make my remarks even briefer than they are.
We're delighted to be with you here this morning and to report to you after our last meeting in December. I want to present the regrets of my chairman, Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme, who cannot be with us this morning, nor can Ruth Freiman, who is our vice-chair. She's actually out of the country.
[Translation]
So my Chairman and Vice-Chairman send their regrets.
[English]
I have a few words on the background of the gallery. It was founded in 1880 by the Governor General, the Marquis of Lorne, became an agency of the government in 1913 with the passage of the National Gallery of Canada Act, and ultimately, in 1990, a crown corporation, along with the other national museums, with the passage of the Museums Act. The CMCP, the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, is our affiliate museum. It was created in 1988 and opened its new building at 1 Rideau Canal in 1992.
.1115
[Translation]
The collection, which is at the heart of what we do, is founded on the work of living Canadian artists, beginning in the last century with the "morceau de réception" of the members of the Royal Canadian Academy, deposited with the fledgling gallery in the 1880s. This commitment to Canadian artists, throughout the land, has created the most comprehensive collection of Canadian art in existence. It includes a distinguished collection of contemporary Inuit art, which was a highlight of the Good Morning America program broadcast from Ottawa last month. The Gallery holds a fine collection of European and American art, and a small but choice collection of Indian sculpture.
[English]
There are over 45,000 individual objects in the collection. Some 4,700 are major works of painting and sculpture, of which about 1,200 are on display. Last year we presented 25 temporary exhibitions and installations, travelled 11 exhibitions to 22 venues, and made 1,132 loans. CMCP offered 23 exhibitions seen at 47 venues.
Our loans and exhibitions went to museums throughout the country from Fredericton and Wolfville, St. John's, Corner Brook, Halifax, and Moncton to Rimouski, Quebec, Baie Saint Paul, and La Malbaie to Sudbury, London, and Toronto to Winnipeg, Estevan, Calgary, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, St. Albert, Swift Current, Vancouver, Kamloops, Penticton, and Kelowna.
In our evolution towards crown corporation status the gallery never occupied a museum, one conceived as such, until 1988, when we moved into the magnificent quarters we occupy today at 380 Sussex Drive. I would like to extend an open invitation to all of you, to your friends, and to your constituents to visit us at your pleasure. I will personally give you a tour of the building and I know my colleagues will be anxious as well to receive you and talk about the collection and the building.
The Museums Act of 1990 gives us a mandate, and I'll state it briefly:
- to develop, maintain and make known, throughout Canada and internationally, a collection of
works of art, both historic and contemporary, with special but not exclusive reference to
Canada, and to further knowledge, understanding and enjoyment of art in general among all
Canadians.
To collect is to develop the collection through gifts and purchases of art. This is done through a board-approved acquisitions policy to strengthen the weak areas in the collection, fill in gaps, and reflect the history and contemporary practice of artists. In 1995-96, the fiscal year just ended, we acquired some 90 works by purchase and 278 by gift. Of the works acquired, 153 were Canadian and 215 were non-Canadian.
Some of the outstanding acquisitions were: the splendid Bronfman gift of a Monet, a Degas, an Emily Carr, and two James Wilson Morrices; gifts of work by Canadian artists like Gershon Iskowitz, Claude Tousignant, Marcelle Ferron, and Karoo Ashevak; purchases of Canadian artists like Jane Ash Poitras, Shirley Wiitasalo, Robert Fones, Geoffrey James, Lawren Harris, and Lucius O'Brien; and purchases of American and European works by artists like Guiseppi Maria Crespi, Otto Dix, and Agnes Martin.
Data on all our activities last year will be available in our annual report, which you receive in September of every year. I have copies here of last year's report, which, incidentally, finished in the Auditor General's top five government annual reports.
Under the section to educate and communicate fall all the activities of exhibiting, loaning, and conserving works of art, of creating education programs around them, and of publications, promotions, and special events. Our 25 exhibitions and installations last year attracted just over 600,000 visitors to the gallery, of whom about 10% were students. This attendance outranks that at other major Canadian fine art museums in areas and cities where the populations are considerably larger than in the national capital region.
.1120
[Translation]
Under "Educate and Communicate" fall all the activities of exhibiting, loaning andconserving works of art. For example, last year, our 25 exhibitions and installations attracted just over 600 000 visitors to the Gallery, about 10 per cent of whom are students.
[English]
Let me point out three noteworthy exhibitions last year: The Queen's Pictures, drawn from Her Majesty's extraordinary collection and seen here last summer with the help of the American Express Foundation; The Group of Seven: Art for a Nation, which was our fall exhibition, assisted by Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, and which also has travelled to Toronto in the spring - it opens in Vancouver next week and goes to Montreal this winter; and M.C. Escher: From Landscapes to Mindscapes, a show of some 140 of the artist's prints and drawings, mostly from our collection and mostly from a gift from the artist's son, who lives in Atlantic Canada.
Our travelling exhibitions, together with the exhibitions and travelling exhibitions of our affiliate, the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, add another 488,300 visitors to our attendance figure, for a very impressive total of 1,088,300 visitors who enjoyed works of art and exhibitions from the national public collection of visual arts.
Under ``Administer, Accommodate'', let me describe briefly the administration. We are a horizontal group, with a director leading a management team comprised of the deputy director and assistant directors; namely, the chief curator, the assistant directors for exhibitions and installations and for communications and marketing, the comptroller, and the director of the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography.
Total full-time equivalent staff positions at year-end were 276, down from 285 at the end of 1994-95.
Management and custody of the gallery's facilities since April 1, 1994 are our responsibility, and we seek to become ever more efficient in this area.
Revenue generation has increased by some 29% from 1994-95, to $5,508,000.
I have set before you in this brief overview only highlights of our work last year, and I of course will be delighted to answer your questions and enter into discussion with you.
The very good attendance figures and revenues raised last year are encouraging for us, but, as I noted in our 1995 program review, in our corporate plans, and in our annual reports, earned revenues cannot replace the cuts to appropriations made by the government. By 1998-99 our appropriation will have been reduced by $7,241,000 from the appropriation in 1994-95.
In a time of intense focus on our heritage and identity, it seems to me to be counter-productive to handicap by such reductions in resources the cultural agencies that are the very expression of Canadian heritage, identity, and achievement.
I believe that the gallery's role is a key and vital one in the collective expression of who we are as a nation, wrought by individual artists throughout the country. The work of those artists is part of the cement that binds us together as a society with shared values and shared commitments to our citizens.
[Translation]
I believe that the Gallery's role is a key and vital one in the collective expression of who we are as a nation, wrought by individual artists throughout this country. Their work is part of the cement that binds us together as a society with shared values and shared commitments to our citizens.
[English]
My hope, then, is for a gallery whose funding is adequate to its purposes, and stable, supported by a wise board of trustees, staffed by learned and enthusiastic personnel, and, above all, speaking to the whole nation. That vision I know you share, and its successful manifestation I trust you will help us to realize.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Thomson.
.1125
Before I open the meeting to questions, I want to ask one question. Right now, in 1996-97, your budget in round figures is $36 million less the $4.6 million you get in revenue, so it's about$31 million net. What will it be in 1998-99? What is the provision for 1998-99?
Mr. Yves Dagenais (Deputy Director, National Gallery of Canada): I presume you are asking about the appropriations, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Dagenais: In 1998-99, including the appropriations for acquisitions, it will be $28,200,000.
The Chairman: It will be $28 million, down from $36 million.
Mr. Dagenais: Yes.
The Chairman: That's $28 million compared to $31 million. The $28 million is the net figure after you take in your revenues.
Mr. Dagenais: Yes, that's excluding revenues. Revenues are in addition to that.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
We will start the first round of questions. You will let Mr. Abbott start, Mr. Dubé?
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): Yes, because I have just arrived. I want some time to read the document.
The Chairman: All right.
[English]
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Speaking to the issue of the budget, I wonder if you could enlighten us. Surely, this must be a problem around the world for all museums, with the crunch that there is for all governments. Could you give us an idea of how other countries handle this issue? In other words, what I'm trying to do here is to get a comparison of Canada in relation to other comparable nations like Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S., on a percentage basis.
Dr. Thomson: Yes, I could give you a rough idea because the National Gallery plays an important international role and, inevitably, we engage in this kind of discussion with our colleagues.
Most of the countries that you mentioned endow their cultural institutions to a heavier extent than does Canada; we are one of the lowest countries supporting federal cultural institutions. So the problem is perhaps not as intense. I'm thinking of Germany and extensive endowment by each state legislation, the Länder and, of course, France. You well know the generosity toward cultural institutions in France and you could perhaps say the same for Germany.
Indeed, we do all face similar situations with the cutback in government expenditures and we all take the same steps, which are to reduce full-time equivalents wherever it is possible, to become more efficient, to turn our attention to increasing revenues, to looking at ways of raising money through sponsorships, for instance. North American institutions, I might say, are perhaps light years ahead of our European counterparts in terms of sponsorships and looking for partnerships within the private sector. All those are activities that are increasingly significant in running cultural institutions.
Mr. Abbott: To take a measurement, if we compared on a per capita basis, how would we compare with the U.S., in your judgment? I'm talking about public funding.
Dr. Thomson: I know we're lower than the U.S. in terms of public funding. Of course, it has a more complex system for supporting the arts, based on its history, where you have the great landed families of the last part of the 19th century setting up endowments. I'm thinking of the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the various people who established museums in Philadelphia, and you have the Getty family in the 1930s. There's not a similar parallel in the evolution of Canadian philanthropic giving or the establishment of institutions such as museums, so it's hard to say.
Mr. Abbott: In terms of revenue support, do you find your acquisitions of private controversial pieces...? I won't catalogue them, but I think you know what I'm referring to.
Dr. Thomson: Yes, I do.
.1130
Mr. Abbott: Do you find that works as a revenue enhancement?
Dr. Thomson: That's not why -
Mr. Abbott: I'm not suggesting that's the motivation. I'm curious to know.
Dr. Thomson: In the sense not necessarily of revenue enhancement, but people become interested and say ,``What's all the fuss about? Let's go and look.''
One of the things we learned - and you're referring to the Voice of Fire, which was really our first experience - was that we had to increase our education and communication function. That was a very good lesson for the gallery to learn, because people wanted to know. It was not the young people; they would come up and say, ``Wow! Cool!''. Older people, mature people, need an explanation; they need to understand what non-representational, abstract art is.
So there's the curiosity factor, which may lead to more revenue from people stopping in the cafeteria or the parking area or buying objects from the gift store.
Mr. Abbott: I will admit to having a lot of difficulty with walking around there and finding culverts and things of that nature and wires going from one corner of the room to the other and things like that. Maybe I'm just too pedestrian for this.
Dr. Thomson: That wire has to do with space. Sculpture has to do with space. This room has to do with space.
Mr. Abbott: And, being a pragmatic businessman, I have a lot of difficulty with looking at that heated space and the cost of it being there. But that's another story.
Dr. Thomson: Now, it didn't cost a lot. It's a work from the late 1960s.
You have just made the point in terms of your attempt to grasp these kinds of issues. In fact, it's that very non-linear thinking that leads to solutions, in a pragmatic way, in business and medicine. We're seeing that more and more.
Mr. Abbott: If I could conclude more with a statement than with a question, I would be interested to know, not this second but going into the future, what kinds of plans can be put into place to deal with the reality of probably even more squeezing on the funding. To be very blunt, I can't see even my profligately spending friends across the room coming forward with much more money.
This really is the challenge of the gallery, isn't it?
Dr. Thomson: I sympathize with every word you say. I assure you that we take that seriously and it is never very far from our minds.
Would you like to add anything to that, Yves?
Mr. Dagenais: You said it well. The challenge is there currently, not only in the years to come. It is a very strong challenge indeed.
The Chairman: I don't know if you have said it so well about my colleagues here, because we don't think we are great spenders. We are always looking for money.
Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): We're getting hell from lots of people for not spending enough on things that Liberal governments like to support.
I'm very pleased that my colleague opposite is having his horizons expanded. I'm sure that's one of the functions of art for all of us. So I appreciate your presentation.
My first question picks up from my colleague opposite in terms of corporate support of the arts and how Canada ranks relative to the United States and other countries. It's my understanding that in Canada corporate support of the arts in general is on the low end.
Dr. Thomson: Yes.
Mr. O'Brien: Do you see a solution to that? Or do you see that as being a problem?
Dr. Thomson: Yes, I think it is a problem, and the solution to it is in our function of educating and communicating.
We run a series of breakfast meetings for the business community in Ottawa, and the political community as well. We start them at 8 a.m., and we find that they become very successful because people get a chance before their day begins.
We have various pre-vernissages, with the visitorship aimed at a certain segment of the population. We make sure when our shows travel across the country, for instance, that the business community attends those openings.
I travel a great deal across the country. So do the curatorial staff and my colleagues in senior administration. At all times we're talking to the business community.
It's a long, tough job to sensitize corporate Canada to the importance of a national collection of great works of art. Corporations often say to us that they're more interested in swimming and tennis. They say we're great, but they want swimming and tennis. We just have to keep working at it and hoping that corporate support will soon come in our direction.
.1135
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you. Is there any role for government to play in helping to educate the corporate sector of Canada about the need for them to show a little more support for the arts? Is there a role for government or is it just to be left to various agencies?
Dr. Thomson: Oh, no.
Enlightened members of Parliament who talk about the importance of the National Gallery of Canada or about any of the national manifestations of our very brilliant and perceptive artists and intellectuals - of course, that goes a long way to justifying and to underlining the importance.
For instance, when you go abroad you are more likely to find Margaret Atwood or Atom Egoyan or the National Arts Centre Orchestra - which brings Vienna to its feet - in the newspapers than some of the other areas of our national life.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask about the impact of the budget cuts that were noted as we started the meeting. Reference was made to it, but I wonder if the witnesses can expand on what impact these cuts will have on service to the public and on collections in general. Is there going to be a decline in quality?
Dr. Thomson: No. We'd look at all the options on how to save money. We have undertaken, with the approval of our board, I might add - and we work very closely with our board of trustees - to maintain the acquisition budget, which is a separate vote, at $3 million, because if you do not keep building a collection, you have an archaeological specimen, something that is dead.
We have also maintained our exhibitions budget at $3 million, because it's important for the Canadian people to see the works of art and it's important to have our travelling exhibitions going out across the country, as well as our loans to the individual institutions.
We're making economies in other areas and we're looking at options at all times.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have one last quick question on education. I think some of my other colleagues have questions.
You mentioned that your education function needed to be increased or is going to be increased. Can you be specific about how that will take place?
Dr. Thomson: We have increased it. For instance, we do a variety of materials for use in the gallery, such as extended labels beside the works of art. We have pamphlets that we hand out, and artists and docents give lectures in front of the works of art.
We run a series of prograMs For instance, there is Activity for Family and Friends, a program in which children bring whatever member of their extended family to the gallery and look at works of art. We have a program called Plaisir des yeux for senior citizens.
We cooperate with institutions across the country, and in fact with other agencies. Recently, the Dance Canada Festival looked at our education and said, ``How do you do this? Can we learn from you in order to help people understand more about dance?'' We said, ``Sure, come and we'll run a joint program.''
We run internship programs for young people in museums across the country. We have professional development seminars. We have the Canadian Centre for the Visual Arts, where we offer scholarships for research within the collection.
We just keep thinking of various ways where that education activity can be strengthened and expanded. To me, it's one of the essential parts of our mandate.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I would like to point out that I am here as a substitute. I was chosen to ask questions, but I'm very interested in this subject and that is why I accepted the invitation to attend this meeting.
I listened very closely to the questions. I don't want to repeat them, but you seem to have managed quite well despite the budget cuts. You say they did not hinder you and that you are making an effort to be more efficient.
.1140
I am worried, though, not so much about the cuts this far, but about next year's cuts. How far is this going to go?
Ms Thomson: You mean that because of these cuts we may not be able to offer adequate public programs? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Dubé: It could be that. You say that you have managed to deal with the cuts so far. Those aren't the ones that concern me, but those to come.
Your budget is being cut and you say you have become more efficient. My colleague's questions about what happens in the rest of the world were very interesting. How many more cuts can you take?
The Chairman: I think Mr. Dubé is asking you what the point of no return would be.
Ms Thomson: We have already suffered because of the cuts, but we must nonetheless fulfil our mandate and try to do better. Should we close the Gallery two or three days a week? That would mean Canadians would no longer have access to the collection.
Yves, would you like to add something?
Mr. Dagenais: It is hard to say exactly when we will really feel the pinch even more. But we do share your concern. The next two years, excluding this one, will clearly be a major challenge, as we said earlier.
We always try to increase our revenues to make up for the cuts to appropriations, but we already know we can't completely make up for them.
We are currently looking at the entire issue of development, in other words what we must do to get as much money as possible. We want to see how we can change the way we do things without reducing the quality of our program, while at the same time fulfilling our mandate.
Mr. Dubé: I looked a the attendance figures for travelling exhibitions. Without doing the calculation, I imagine travelling exhibitions represent approximately 45% of the overall museum attendance. I would like to know what portion of your budget goes to travelling exhibitions.
Mr. Dagenais: I can answer that from memory. We earmark approximately $600,000 for our affiliated museum, the Museum of Contemporary Photography, and for our own exhibition program. That sum obviously does not include the salaries of those who work at those exhibitions.
Mr. Dubé: Does that generate any revenues?
Mr. Dagenais: Part of that is more cost recovery.
Mr. Dubé: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Dagenais: An outside institution that gets our exhibition will be asked to pay the transportation costs and sometimes minimum presentation fees. But that doesn't really constitute a revenue.
Mr. Dubé: I have one last question on the acquisitions, especially donations. You spoke of a fabulous Monet that had been donated by the Bronfman family, I presume. How much is it worth?
Ms Thomson: All of the donations we received last year are worth a total of approximately$10 million. Acquisitions represented a little over $3 million of our budget. So you could say it was a good year.
Some years we do not receive as many valuable donations.
Mr. Dubé: You said it was funded, and I am sure it is because everyone knows how much Monet paintings are worth. I am sure you know how much it is worth.
Ms Thomson: We never disclosed the exact amount. But you could check in the auction book in New York or London. Monet paintings that size are worth between $4 and $6 million. It depends on the condition and notoriety of the work.
.1145
Mr. Dubé: You obviously give a tax receipt for the same amount.
Ms Thomson: We work with the Cultural Property Export Review Board so that those works are considered cultural property.
Mr. Dubé: What is that organization called in French?
Mr. Dagenais: The Commission d'exportation et d'examen des biens culturels.
Mr. Dubé: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Dubé.
[English]
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): On the funding side of it, do you have any provincial grants that match the federal grants?
Dr. Thomson: No.
Mr. Fewchuk: Have you ever approached a provincial government?
Dr. Thomson: I have spoken to various cultural ministries, yes, in successive Ontario governments.
Mr. Fewchuk: I had a concern when you talked about shutting it down to the public. The revenue that you receive from the public every year is what - for example, for your 1995 or 1996 budget? What are the fees paid by the people to come in?
Dr. Thomson: The earned revenue? The access to the permanent collection is free at all times. For special exhibitions we charge a modest sum, and we have noted no hostility whatsoever on the part of the public to paying that.
Mr. Fewchuk: Have you considered charging an admission at the gate at all times, just as a theatre does?
Dr. Thomson: Yes, we do. We look at that constantly.
Mr. Fewchuk: Are you thinking of doing that in the future to become self-sufficient, as a way of raising more money?
Also, do you have a national ticket draw or some such thing? What's your fund-raising background? What do you do for fund-raising?
Dr. Thomson: We look at sponsorships for shows that travel. As I mentioned, the Chubb Insurance Company sponsored the Group of Seven show.
It's very difficult to superimpose a national sponsorship on travelling exhibitions when those sponsors might have different interests in different areas of the country. For instance, Vancouver or Toronto will have a sponsor who might not be interested in a presence in Ottawa. So those are very difficult issues that cannot be resolved by one across-the-board procedure.
Do you want to add anything, Yves?
Mr. Dagenais: I want to come back to admission fees. Indeed, it is something that in our plan we said we would re-examine. What exactly we will do we don't know yet. There was a time when we indeed did charge a general entrance fee, but then attendance was in fact going down. We experimented with it and provided free admission for a period of four months. While we lost the revenue, we found that the bookstore and the parking were doing much better, and indeed attendance went up again.
This led us to the compromise we have today, where we don't charge for the permanent collection but we charge for some special exhibitions. Will we maintain that? I don't really know.
Of course there's always in mind the idea that if you charge only $1 or $2 it might bring in so much. We will examine that.
Mr. Fewchuk: Yes. That's my concern, because, as you know, each department should sufficiently look after itself at some time down the road. So I was just wondering what you're doing in that intent to get there in the future, a five-year program or whatever you have. But you haven't decided. You say that you might look at admissions, but you haven't said if it would be this year or next year.
Mr. Dagenais: No. We have not said this with precision, but we will be looking at it this year.
Mr. Fewchuk: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier): Thank you, Ms Thomson, for coming today.
I have two questions on the future rather than on the past. One is on the Art Bank. I note that it is not the Museum's responsibility, but I have been reading the newspapers to keep up to date on the future of the contemporary Art Bank. No one knows exactly what will happen to it, but I have often heard it said that art is being sold to keep the rest afloat.
.1150
Is your organization interested in the Art Bank, mostly because it is the largest collection of contemporary art in Canada? Would it be in your interest to get some pieces of that collection, and perhaps even the entire collection?
Ms Thomson: We are not interested in getting the entire collection because we would have to find a place to store it. You have to have sufficient staff and equipment to store the works of art as well as the means to exhibit them. There is no point in having a larger art collection is we have to store it. There are, however, a few pieces from the Art Bank collection that would interest us and we are currently discussing the matter with the head of the Canada Council.
Mr. Bélanger: Would the museum envisage administering its collection like other museums are doing, for example renting works of art? Would it consider selling works of art, perhaps under the aegis of the National Gallery? Have you considered such options?
Ms Thomson: We are of course prepared to cooperate in all areas and at all levels. I believe that the Art Bank has already reduced its staff and administration costs. It has a problem with its premises; it is paying very high rent, and that will take two or three years to deal with. But we are quite prepared to cooperate. For the moment we have had no such request.
Mr. Bélanger: I am saying that I would like you to protect that collection. If the National Gallery could find a way of protecting it, the Ottawa-Carleton community would be very grateful indeed.
Ms Thomson: I will take note of your remarks.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.
[English]
The second question relates to the modern means of communication. I'm aware that the gallery has been using CD-ROM technology to make all of its collection, I gather, accessible throughout the country and beyond.
Dr. Thomson: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: Would you mind, perhaps, giving us the latest update on that? I would appreciate it.
Dr. Thomson: Yes. We follow very closely, as I'm sure you all do, the evolution in the field of technology. I must say you have to get up early in the morning to really discover what is going on, because the means of delivery change so fast.
We are presently digitizing the Canadian collection, and that will be the first part of the collection to go on CD-ROM. We have an in-house committee. We're looking at setting up a learning and communications centre within the gallery, where the means of delivering the information that curators, conservators and our communications people input will be via computer monitors within the gallery.
We also have a web site. I've distributed to you a little card with our web site on it. We just opened on June 8. We have had some 800,000 hits and about 25,500 visitors, that is, people who linger.
For instance, we just put up on the web site the Bronfman gift. We look at that at all times. We record videos of the artists who come to the galleries, and this too eventually is material for the web site. We have considerable archival material and we're there. We're players.
Mr. Bélanger: Is this available through the SchoolNets?
Dr. Thomson: Yes, we worked on the SchoolNet in the spring on a program based on the Escher show, From Landscapes to Mindscapes. We worked with a group of teachers. We produced a teachers' kit so that the teachers could use this kit and the program on the Internet in the schoolroom. So we work very closely with school matters as well.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you. Carry on the good work.
Dr. Thomson: Thank you.
The Chairman: We have only a few minutes left.
Mr. Dubé and Mr. Abbott, have you any questions?
Just before we close, Dr. Thomson, may I ask you one specific question and make one comment?
.1155
My question would be this: when I compare what we do here with what the United States does with regard to funding of public good institutions, whether it be the arts or other fields, the United States seems to encourage endowments and foundations to a far more proactive and greater degree than we do. As a result, you have these massive foundations that fund all kinds of public good projects. Would you see this as one of the ways in which we could help you try to promote the idea of more endowments and bigger foundations in Canada?
Dr. Thomson: That is an excellent suggestion. We would welcome that very, very strongly. Tax relief, for instance, is a very important factor. An indemnification program for travelling works of art would put considerable relief into our budgets. You can play a very important role on behalf of all the cultural institutions across the country.
The Chairman: The last remark I would make, just to follow up on Mr. Bélanger's question a little earlier to you about the bank... I sense what Mr. Bélanger was trying to say - that's how I understood it - is that he felt, and he will correct me if I'm wrong, that the gallery should take a far more proactive role in trying to see how it can help the bank with the current dilemma.
Dr. Thomson: I have periodic discussions with the contract person who is hired by the bank to reach a solution to that problem. I have periodic discussions with the chairman of the Canada Council as well as the director of the Canada Council. We can't offer to take on that collection.
The Chairman: Why is that?
Dr. Thomson: Because we don't have the space and we don't have the personnel to administer it. But we're certainly there for advice and to brainstorm and to see what are the new ideas, what are the new energies.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman...
The Chairman: All right, one brief question.
Mr. Bélanger: You were absolutely right. I would like to see the gallery be more aggressive, because if others can acquire the collection and sustain it through rentals or sales, then I would imagine that the gallery would have the wherewithal, even more so, to do the same.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Dr. Thomson, we will leave it at that. I think the message is quite clear.
Dr. Thomson: We'll look at it.
The Chairman: I think we share the same objective. Thank you very much for appearing. Merci beaucoup, monsieur Dagenais. Thank you very much, Dr. Thomson.
Dr. Thomson: Just let me make a little advertising pitch here. The Corot show opens next week. It's a very beautiful, very important show. It received over 5,000 visitors a day in Paris. We are one of the producers of this show, simply to underline the excellence of the reputation of Canada on an international scale. After it spends the summer here it goes on to New York.
We are initiating the Renoir show. First-time portraits of Renoir have been examined and collected. It originates at the National Gallery next summer. It will then go on to Chicago, the Art Institute, and the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. You are all welcome at any time.
The Chairman: All right, Dr. Thomson, we won't charge you for that publicity. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming.
Dr. Thomson: Thank you.
The Chairman: Time pressures are upon us. Instead of taking a break between the two groups of witnesses, I would like to call on Mr. Beaudry.
.1200
.1201
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome members of the National Capital Commission who accepted our invitation to appear before the committee. Marcel Beaudry is the NCC's chairman.Mr. Beaudry, would you kindly introduce your colleagues?
Mr. Marcel Beaudry (Chairman, National Capital Commission): With me today are Robin Young, Vice-President of the Strategic Planning and Information Management Branch, as well as Micheline Dubé, Director of the Strategic and Corporate Planning Division.
The Chairman: I would like to ask you a little favour, Mr. Beaudry. We're coming out to the end of the session and some committee members will have to speak in the House in a few moments. If you wouldn't mind, could you summarize the main thrust of your presentation so that all committee members get a chance to put their questions? We would appreciate this very much, though you are of course under no obligation. In general, we give witnesses some 15 minutes to make a presentation, but we would appreciate it if you summarized yours today.
Mr. Beaudry: Of course, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Though I'll try to be brief, I'll still go though the main points in my presentation to give you an overview of the National Capital Commission's activities over the past year.
The Chairman: That's fine.
Mr. Beaudry: First, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Over one year ago - on March 28th, 1995 - I met with members of this very committee for the first time as president of the National Capital Commission. Since that time, I can safely say that the NCC has changed a great deal, both in terms of its structure and in terms of the approach taken to fulfil its mandate.
Nineteen ninety five was a year of spectacular changes for the NCC, and I'm very pleased to say that the changes have had a positive impact.
Today, the NCC is a smaller, more efficient and more flexible Crown Corporation, which is far better able to take up the challenges of the year 2000.
[English]
To begin with, it is important to stress that this new way of doing business at the NCC does not inhibit our ability to fulfil our mandate. On the contrary, if anything, this new approach reflects the NCC's determination to preserve its unique mandate.
The NCC is a crown corporation with a long and honourable pedigree, descended from an agency founded in 1899 with a mandate to create a capital of which Canadians could be proud. NCC has worked in its present form since 1958 to bring the idea of urban planner Jacques Gréber to life in the form of parkways, public parks, ceremonial routes, and national monuments. Today Canada's capital is considered one of the most beautiful in the world, known internationally for its clean and green image.
In 1988 the commission's mandate expanded to comprise the use of public land to stage events to inform Canadians about themselves and the country. We stand proudly by our mission to build pride and unity in Canada through Canada's capital region.
However, in the context of the federal government's program review, the only way the NCC could meet its financial objectives and continue to deliver the same quality programs and services that Canadians have grown to expect from us was through downsizing. The NCC has committed to reduce its budget by some $21.4 million by 1998.
In 1995 the National Capital Commission established a plan to cut its operational expenses by 24% over the following three years. Severe staff reductions were inevitable, but NCC management was not prepared to cut its employees adrift without a means of support because of the impact it would have had on the individual and on the national capital region, already the area of the country hardest hit by government downsizing.
.1205
NCC management sought a creative way to meet its staff reduction targets without sacrificing either the quality of their programs or their employees. The result was the commercialization of its property and land management functions - the heavy cost drivers - by employee takeover corporations.
The risk was high, as the NCC is the first public agency to attempt such profound commercialization. There's no doubt in my mind that this is the best approach the NCC could have taken. Creation of ETCs allowed the NCC to benefit from former employees' skills and expertise in horticultural design, land, building, and canal maintenance, to name but a few.
Not only could these services be provided more economically by the private sector, but commercializing these front-line functions would also allow the NCC to eliminate support services such as the greenhouse and nursery and its fleet of vehicles and equipment, along with all of its trade shops. In turn, moving the front-line and support functions to the private sector would enable the commission to reduce corporate overhead by 40%.
[Translation]
The NCC made a commitment to provide employees affected by cuts with all the support they needed to ease the transition as much as possible.
Employees with an adventurous spirit who wanted to set up their own businesses were assisted by a broad range of services that helped them implement, finance and mange their company. This alone provided jobs for more people.
Almost half of the NCC former employees are now employed by companies set up by employees.
Other employees have formed one- or two-person companies, which provides services for companies established by employees.
Furthermore, the NCC offered all laid-off employees a full range of services to facilitate their transition into the private sector, regardless of whether they were recruited by companies established by their colleagues.
All laid-off employees have access to workshops on job hunting, CV preparation and training, as well as to a temporary employment centre.
In preparing its commercialization plan, the NCC worked very closely with the private sector in the National Capital Region.
Instead of rejecting the initiative of companies established by former employees, and viewing them as unfair competition, business people banded together to support the integration of former public employees into the private sector.
The NCC did everything it could to ensure that businesses set up by employees were efficient and viable.
[English]
The underlying principle of the NCC's employee takeover process was that it would provide a directed contract to an employee company, following a rigorous internal proposal call process.
The NCC had strongly held values in its commercialization plan. It was important that the employee companies be truly employee-based organizations. To achieve this goal, it was mandatory, among other things, that 51% of the shares be owned by former NCC employees throughout the term of the original contract, that for the first year 51% of the employees must be former NCC staff, and that all ETC employees must be allowed to acquire and retain voting shares and participate in ETC profits.
As the summer of 1996 approaches, the NCC has succeeded in establishing six employee takeover corporations that are standing on their own feet and are providing services worth$36 million to their former employer.
The contracted work - three- to five-year contracts, depending on the capital investment required by the company - is done on schedule and at the same or a better standard. Based on the reputation of the NCC's workers, many of the ETCs are now bidding on opportunities from both the public and private sectors and have already extended their client base.
The stage is set for the second and third wave of downsizing, which is already under way as the shops and greenhouses close down and the lay-off of corporate staff is forthcoming.
The commission has established a set of values and has adhered to them by mounting a process that is above reproach, by identifying and solving issues early and effectively, and by demonstrating that the NCC cares about the welfare of its employees and the community.
As a result, the NCC is the first government agency to successfully implement an alternative service model of this type in North America. The NCC's initiative is being used as a case study for public policy developed on employee takeovers.
.1210
[Translation]
I would like to take the few minutes remaining to give you a brief overview of the strategic issues associated with the NCC's mandate, and of the objectives we have established for the next five years.
The NCC's mandate can be divided into three components: to make the capital a meeting place for Canadians; to use the capital to communicate Canada to Canadians - or if you prefer, to promote our national identity; and to safeguard and preserve national treasures in the capital for future generations.
The NCC focuses on three very different areas of activity: programming, planning and realty management.
All those activities are associated by one single and common objective; to promote pride and unity among the men and women of Canada.
The federal government's primary concern in 1996 is to strengthen national unity. The NCC has a very important role to play. It is the only agency with a mandate to promote pride and Canadian unity through Canada's national capital.
[English]
The NCC is in the business of building pride. In planning for the next five years we've responded to this very basic question: how can we best achieve this responsibility?
Much of the NCC's effort and budget in any given year is devoted to the land, because obviously without its land the commission would not have the physical assets to build a great and lasting capital.
However, in terms of its mission, programming is paramount. By bringing the public spaces of the capital to life, the NCC is using its lands to inform, inspire and serve Canadians in our collective struggle to preserve the country.
Of equal importance, the NCC is making its land available to other agencies, like the national museums, to help fulfil the capital's potential as a source of pride.
The NCC has earned a reputation over the years as a producer of world-class events. The two major annual programs produced by the NCC are Canada Day and Winterlude. These events, which have gained international recognition, not only bring Canadians here to the capital, they also carry Canada's capital to Canadians across the country through television.
In 1995 the Canada Day evening show, broadcast live from Parliament Hill, received the golden award from the International Festivals and Events Association. As well, the Great Canadian Ice Breaker, the Winterlude kick-off television show broadcast from coast to coast, received the bronze award.
The NCC's expertise in special events is also recognized by our partners, be they from the public or the private sector. This is why the NCC plays a leadership role in coordinating the development and the implementation of programs and marketing strategies. To cite just one example, we are currently working with our federal partners to develop common broad themes around which each agency will build their programming.
Programmers at the NCC have already turned their attention to the approaching millennium. The NCC is taking the lead now in rallying its partners around a common strategy that will result in a major project or event to mark the new millennium in the national capital region.
In August the National Capital Commission will be inaugurating its new state-of-the-art Capital Infocentre, just across from Parliament Hill at the corner of Wellington and Metcalfe Streets. Visitors to the capital will be provided with completely new interactive high-tech services, making this centre the key starting point from which to experience the capital region's attractions.
The NCC also reaches out to Canadians who cannot visit the capital. For example, the NCC sends materials and information to Canadian schools and recruits young people in every province as capital youth ambassadors. Other outreach programs include the capital family experience, the Great Canadian Volunteer Expedition, the Canadian Capital Cities Conference, and the national tulip tribute from shore to shore. These programs bring hundreds of Canadians to their capital each year. There's no question in my mind that these Canadians return to their homes with a renewed sense of pride in Canada.
The NCC is also one of several sponsors for a national program called Communities in Bloom.
[Translation]
These programs support the NCC's mission to promote Canadian pride and unity by providing Canadians with many opportunities to celebrate being a part of Canada.
The NCC's objective is to develop an annual programming schedule that extends over twelve months. This will be achieved in close cooperation with its partners.
.1215
Over the next five years, we will focus our activities at three levels: at the international level, to help Canadians appreciate Canada's role on the international scene, through such diverse activities as the "Canada and the World" program; at the national level, by establishing links with the business community across Canada; and at the provincial level, by establishing a network among provinces and the capital through conferences and cultural and artistic events.
Our planning activities are unique in that they reflect a long-term vision for the National Capital Region.
At present, the NCC is updating its plan for Canada's capital. The plan is in essence a management plan for federal lands in the National Capital Region.
Work on this plan is carried out in close cooperation with our federal, provincial, regional and municipal partners in order to harmonize the long-term interests of all levels of government in all activities designed to enhance the region. This cooperation is vital in ensuring that the region is managed so as to reflect its status as Canada's National Capital.
Many planning subactivities are part of the process to update the Plan.
The most important subactivities include the Gatineau Park Master Plan, the Green Belt and Urban Corridors Master Plan.
Thus, the long-term planning process. By means of ongoing follow-up, the NCC regularly reviews the ways which land use best contributes the fulfilment of its mandate. In that perspective, the NCC intends to keep any land essential to the fulfilment of that mandate.
The NCC also intends to use these lands, when possible, to generate revenue to support other programs which reinforce its mandate.
Lands considered as surplus to the NCC's needs may be disposed of.
[English]
Over the last few years the NCC has focused its efforts on separating and rationalizing its land holdings. The NCC now has a plan that clearly identifies the lands essential to the pursuit of its mandate, the lands we intend to dispose of and the lands that have the potential to be developed.
Our real asset management plan is based on what we call the 3-D strategy. This includes the divestiture of municipal-like assets to regional and municipal authorities. For example, the NCC lately transferred the Mackenzie King Bridge and the Laurier Bridge to RMOC for a cost avoidance of $25 million.
In return the NCC transferred to the RMOC two corridors that are part of RMOC's regional transportation network, the Alta Vista corridor and the airport parkway, as well as other land to fulfil regional needs.
The NCC also concluded an agreement with the City of Ottawa by transferring a series of properties that were already used for municipal purposes in exchange for a zoning modification in the Heron-Walkley area. In return, the city agreed to maintain at its cost a number of bridges, parkways, streets and pathways for the next 49 years and to transfer the Rockcliffe Park to the NCC.
[Translation]
The second part has to do with the disposal of lands that are not tied to our mandate.
Finally, the third part deals with the development of certain holdings in partnership with the private sector, so as to maximize our revenue generation efforts, for instance the Daly site, the Wakefield Mill, the properties at the corner of Nicholas and Waller and the Meach stream valley.
As to capital projects, the two most expensive projects, over the next five years, will be the reconstruction of the Champlain Bridge and the improvements on Confederation Boulevard.
In closing, the NCC is proud of the role it has played, and continues to play, so that the National Capital Region will become a model of cooperation, a source of pride and unity for Canadians.
The NCC is just as proud of the way that it has gone about becoming a more flexible organization, better equipped to meet greater and more difficult challenges and at a lower cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
After successfully overcoming the obstacles of the last year, the NCC feels more prepared and more confident than ever to face the future.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
Thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Beaudry. Mr. Dubé
Mr. Dubé: I'm not in the same situation as earlier, because we had a text and I asked for little more time to read it.
I'm a little surprised that Mr. Beaudry has told us that the National Capital Commission is a smaller and more efficient commission. I would have to read over the text because I think there's a translation problem, not enough time, which means that I can't respond to the Chairman's statement.
.1220
I don't want to drag him into a debate similar to the one last year, concerning the beauty of cities. As I'm from the Quebec City region, I tend to downplay the beauty of the Canadian capital compared to Quebec City which, in my opinion, is a beautiful capital.
I was able to look over the document prepared by the Library. There has been privatization. It's interesting, what you've presented to us. You state, for instance, that half of the employees who were laid off were able to continue working on contract with you and that it worked out well.
I have a comment that does not reflect my party's position, but rather a personal one.
When a public organization such as the National Capital Commission has access to very high quality human resources, when many people work there, and that at a some point, this organization changes and continues to do what it used to do using the same employees, but in another form, it's because those employees are good and work well. If it's more efficient to proceed this way, is it because the National Capital Commission was poorly managed? I'd like to hear your comments on that.
Mr. Beaudry: First of all, experience shows that if you invest your own time and your own money, your interest is not quite the same as when you work with other people's money. When you set up private companies to carry out the same work by the same people, the attitude of those employees, even if they were competent and were doing excellent job... When it's their own money and their own business, their attitude becomes much more dynamic and realistic than when they were federal employees.
At the NCC, we could easily have said that the easiest way to proceed was to eliminate all the work done by the land maintenance staff. There were about 400 employees working in that area. We could have said that we were contracting out this work to the private sector. When you cut your operational expenses by 24 to 25%, you can well imagine that if you cut horizontally, and continuously, you end up with very few programs, very little maintenance, or very poor maintenance, and lots of management. So we had to make choices. We preferred to start by privatizing that part.
The employees there had expertise, wanted to keep job security and were willing to make the effort to set up their own business. We decided to give them the opportunity to do so, and we gave them the necessary means to contact lawyers, accountants and business people. We told them: "Give us a business plan that shows that you are going to meet the standards that we will set in advance. You will have to do the work for 25% less than you do now. The control will be in the hands of former employees and we'll let you join up with the private sector. We'll also ensure that at least 51% of former employees will be employed in that company, at least for the first year".
That is how we went about it. Thirty groups of employees of the NCC showed an interest. We set up a jury that was totally autonomous from the NCC, that wasn't made up of members of the NCC or of the executive.
.1225
We got outsiders with experience: a lawyer, a former deputy minister of British Columbia and an engineer who travels around the world with all sorts of plans, contracts, and so on. Those people then made recommendations based on the amount of interest shown by each of the groups and they kept 17. The 13 other groups were eliminated. The 17 groups that were kept made proposals and they were the ones who suggested retaining six from amongst them.
If those six groups, while complying with what is done federally, are today providing the same service or just about the same service, there must have been a bit of fat in the departments where there have been substantial cuts to personnel.
In our department, it was the same thing, and now we've proven it, because we're selling our surplus equipment. Those companies had the opportunity to select the equipment we made available to them to carry out the work, the trucks, the lawn equipment, the bulldozers, everything necessary to do this kind of work. They chose, kept and, in certain cases, bought immediately. In other cases, the payment is at the end of the contract.
We were left with a $2.5 million inventory. When your equipment has depreciated it's because you had too much. As a result, the warehouses where we kept this equipment, the garage where it was repaired, the nursery where we seeded flowers, and so on, were eliminated. This equipment and these buildings will be sold.
These people may not have the same working conditions as before. It was not up to the NCC to worry about that. The NCC's concern was to give them the opportunity to say: "You have a job and you have the opportunity to turn a profit. If you work hard and manage well, at the end of the year, you'll be happy and you'll be able to get contracts in the private sector".
We gave them that chance and they grabbed it. There are six businesses today which have been operating since last April 1st. We carry out quality control because we want to ensure quality and consistency. We want to make sure that the public has the same services as before, that we have the same activities, the same type of security and so on. This is constantly being followed up, because we haven't laid off the staff of this department. We kept on qualified people to carry out the follow-up.
The Chairman: Mr. Beaudry, please finish so that we can give others a chance.
Mr. Beaudry: Yes, one last point. Yesterday, I appeared before the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We had been invited to explain to them how we had gone about this, because they also want to privatize.
We were told that some of the businesses that we had set up had already called on the corporation, to try and get maintenance contracts.
So they've already started to work as private companies. We're very hopeful that this experience will be very positive.
Mr. Dubé: If there's any time left at the end, I'll come back to this.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Beaudry, the National Capital Commission embarked on a Champlain Bridge environmental assessment in 1995. The terms of reference it set for its $339,000 study were to examine a three-lane option. I wonder if you could explain this decision to proceed with expending federal dollars to explore a widened Champlain Bridge and trigger an environmental assessment.
Mr. Beaudry: We don't know yet what the decision of the board will be down the road.
There have been many representations from the people living on the Quebec side who want to widen the bridge because for many years they've had to wait a long time to be able to cross the river. Of course, people who live in the area and in the communities on the Ontario side are not at all in favour of a three-lane bridge. They want the bridge to remain as two lanes because they don't want more cars in their community.
Since we own the bridge and since the National Capital Commission has jurisdiction over both sides of the river, we felt it was important to do the environmental study so that all options would be analysed and studied even a little further than what we would have done normally.
For instance, we've even examined the possibility of asking the Government of Ontario to close the ramp that goes from the Queensway to Island Park Drive in order to limit traffic travelling on Island Park Drive. This was also taken into account, and we're expecting the report from the consultant to be tabled with the NCC on June 21. At that point the NCC will be called upon to take a decision, after the public will have been consulted during the summer months.
.1230
The reason we went two ways was exactly that on the one hand we had people who didn't want a three-lane bridge, and on the other hand we had people on the other side of the river who felt that after waiting 25 years, a three-lane bridge was a reasonable demand.
Mr. Abbott: Had there not been three previous studies?
Mr. Beaudry: Oh, there have been previous studies. JACPAT's study was one that was called upon some six or seven years ago. RMOC, CUO, the Government of Quebec, the Government of Ontario, the National Capital Commission, and both transportation commissions were all involved.
This was a study with the objective of finding a better traffic flow between both sides of the river. It was designed to try to find where the next bridge crossing the river should be and to study the availability on bridges at that point in time. So it was presented as a long-term study.
The consultant came to the conclusion that their choice for a new bridge should be on Kettle Island. It was a four-lane bridge that could be built in the year 2011 or afterwards, at a cost of some $375 million. That was rejected again by the people in the community on this side, because of course traffic would have crossed their community and their streets and all that.
Mr. Abbott: I'm trying to explore the relationship between your comments today in terms of the long-term plan and what was reported in The Ottawa Citizen over a year ago. I think I've written this down correctly. You speak about ``close cooperation with other levels of government''. I'm trying to compare that comment to what the Citizen said: the National Capital Commission won't open its board meetings to the public because it doesn't want its agenda hijacked by parochial interests.
You're also specifically quoted as saying that you feel that because you're a crown corporation, with appointed members answerable to Parliament, you don't have to answer to and be under pressure from local politicians. Yet what other crown corporation is there in Canada that would be talking about whether Wellington Street should have an interchangeable lane and so on?
Why is the process relative to the Champlain Bridge not going to be fully open, and why does it not have the full cooperation of the other levels of government?
Mr. Beaudry: I think the Champlain Bridge is totally open. That study was not done behind doors. That study was done with consultants and a technical advisory committee was set up. A public advisory committee was set up back in December 1994.
NCC sent letters to every community group in the area, 28 on the Ontario side and 5 on the Quebec side, saying that if they wanted representatives on those committees they should say so; they should inform us of the process and give their suggestions on the process. Since then meetings did take place between the consultant and these advisory committees on a regular basis, at least two or three times.
Public meetings were open as late as May, on the Quebec side and on the Ontario side, explaining what the findings were, what the direction was, and what was the preliminary recommendation of the consultant. So it was not done behind closed doors.
Mr. Abbott: To cut to the chase, I'm concerned about this. You have Minister Massé, who is quoted on TV as promising his residents in Aylmer, who elected him, that he would get them the third lane. We have had studies up to this point that have said that they don't want a third lane, and yet it was forced ahead that there was going to be another environmental study here.
So my question is this. Has he or have any other ministers of the Crown made their personal preferences known on this matter? If so, in what format?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes. Marlene Catterall on the Ontario side made her preference known that she doesn't want a three-lane bridge. Marcel Massé on the Quebec side supports a three-lane bridge. They don't come from the same side of the river, and of course they don't answer to the same constituents, so naturally their positions are not the same.
.1235
However, I haven't made that declaration yet, because the decision hasn't been taken. I cannot prevent Minister Massé from making a declaration to his constituents saying he's supporting a three-lane bridge. I'm not sure that it's quite correct that no one has ever called for a three-lane bridge. This has been an ongoing concern of people from the Quebec side to have a three-lane bridge. Granted, the City of Ottawa, RMOC, did pass a resolution on this side saying they would not open more streets to traffic, that they would not favour a three-lane bridge, that they were not concerned about traffic coming from the Quebec side. They said, ``Let them worry about their troubles.''
I've seen an article this morning from Peter Clark to that effect. I do recognize that, but it doesn't mean that people from Quebec are not concerned about the fact that if they have to come to Ottawa to work, because they work for the government and the office of the government is on the Ottawa side, they have to cross the Ottawa River. It doesn't mean that the people who live on Island Park Drive are not concerned about the fact that there's a lot of traffic on their street.
We're trying to take into account the concerns of everyone, but at the end of the road a decision will have to be taken. It will be either a two-lane or a three-lane bridge. One group is going to be dissatisfied and the other group is going to be possibly satisfied, or maybe everyone will be dissatisfied. I don't know.
Mr. Abbott: I guess the real problem is that when you have people, well-meaning and good-serving people, from Regina and Rivière-du-Loup and Inuvik on the board making decisions for the national capital... The perception that has been related to me is that the local politicians are not really in the core, not really in the loop, on this thing. I suppose that is my concern.
Mr. Beaudry: I wouldn't say they are not in the loop. The JACPAT study was financed one-third by the Government of Ontario. OC Transpo had a member sitting on that board. It was one-third financed by the Government of Quebec, and the transportation commission, which comes under the jurisdiction of the CUO on the other side, also had a member on that board. We also had one member on the board. We were financing one-third of it. So they've been in the loop for studies for years and years.
We're involved at the present time with an accounting study that has been called for by, I think, the City of Ottawa, or RMOC. They've asked NCC again to cooperate and put money into it to try to find methods of diminishing traffic in the streets, particularly in the Champlain Bridge area on the Ontario side. We did cooperate there. The consultant was not hired by us. The consultant was hired by the other level of government. There were studies before that they were called upon to comment on. So surely they were in the loop. They're responsible for -
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, could we come back to you after?
Mr. Abbott: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: I have a few questions for Mr. Beaudry. The first has to do with the Green Belt, that pearl of the National Capital region, and certain people's concerns as to the possibility of selling land, and how the profits from the sale of these lands would then be used.
I would like you, if you can, Mr. Beaudry, to explain a bit more the NCC's policy concerning the disposal of lands at the edge of the Green Belt.
Mr. Beaudry: Considering the green belt, the NCC is already committed to maintaining it. We think it's essential for the capital that this belt remain in place.
Consultations have been under way concerning the green belt for about five years now. The public was consulted three times. The cities concerned, Gloucester, Nepean and Ottawa, were also consulted, as well as the RMOC, concerning the changes we want to make.
With the years, roads have crossed the green belt, it has been crisscrossed and there are pieces of land that are isolated from the belt. On the other hand, some of the lands adjacent to the green belt do not belong to the National Capital Commission. They are environmentally sensitive and we think they should be incorporated into the green belt.
.1240
We wanted to harmonize the green belt plan with RMOC's plan and recover the neighbouring lands. This operation would add some 400, 500 or 600 acres of land to the green belt.
We are not reducing the green belt; we're increasing it. We tell people that the lands we want to dispose of, because they are no longer useful, are not attached to the green belt. They are cut off by roads that have been built. When we sell them, we'll reinvest the money to buy additional lands within the green belt, or to develop activities that can be of use to the public. We'll be able to carry on with the bike trails that have already been started. They stretch over five kilometres to the west of the green belt as well as five kilometres to the east.
We'd like to join these two extremities by cycle paths, which would run for 90 kilometres. You need money for that. With the money obtained from the selling or renting of land, we could get funds which, according to us, would be sufficient to finish these networks and other activities such as interpretation centres, and so on.
Mr. Bélanger: I'd like to come back to what my colleague on the other side was saying concerning the setting up of companies by former employees of the NCC. Without wanting to put you in a difficult position, I'd like to come back to an essential element of the process that you described, the setting up of an independent jury - I think that's the expression you used - and I'd like you to tell us, please, what led the NCC to choose an independent jury.
I don't want to trap you, Mr. Beaudry, but I won't hide the fact that I personally have a problem with the Treasury Board's policy, which has avoided this way of doing things, and which would rather have management within the departments or agencies.
I must congratulate you on the path you've chosen. I don't want to trap you because I think you proceeded admirably but I'd like to know what led you to choose an independent jury to analyze the interest shown.
Mr. Beaudry: First of all, I'd like to say that this idea was suggested to me by my Vice-President, following the advice we've gotten from a consultant we used at the beginning of the setting up of these private companies by our employees.
There were two reasons. The first is that we didn't want to be seen by our employees as being biased and favouring some of them. Obviously, as Chairman and Vice-President for maintenance, there were employees that we considered more efficient, more competent.
If the jury had been set up within the Commission, people might have thought we had chosen such and such a group rather than another group, for personal reasons. The perception would have been that everything was decided in advance, because the Vice-President preferred one person to another.
We wanted to avoid that, so that everyone would see that we had acted honestly, with sincerity, determination, but fairly towards everyone.
Secondly, when you work within an organization, you do have skills that you use as well as possible. However, the private sector people, such as the Ottawa lawyer whose services we retained and who had already carried out many privatizations gave us the benefit of their experience.
The Deputy Minister from British Columbia had already done privatizations, at his government's request, the Department of Transportation in that province. He had gone through a privatization, even if his priority wasn't to cut 25 per cent...
The Chairman: Could you speed it up a bit so that the other members of the Committee have the opportunity...
Mr. Beaudry: I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, but I'm being asked a question and I must answer.
That's why we chose him. The third was a person that had already sat on our advisory committees and who also had much experience. We thought it was the right way to go about things. Moreover, we got nothing but compliments from our employees on the process.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, do you have a question?
.1245
Mr. O'Brien: I have several, Mr. Chairman, but maybe I'll just ask one now.
It relates to security on Parliament Hill. Can you explain what role the NCC has in security on Parliament Hill? What's your reaction to the thought of some constituents of mine who come here and are pleased that it's such a people place, but are surprised at the easy access of private vehicles that come literally right up to the very door of the building?
Mr. Beaudry: I understand that at this point in time there is a committee involving the RCMP, the National Capital Commission, the House of Commons and the Senate. Everyone is involved in trying to get better security on the Hill. We're involved inasmuch as NCC activity limits itself to the outside of the buildings.
Of course, there is programming going on. For instance, the tent is our responsibility and there are going to be some interactive activities going on in the summertime for which we're responsible. We're working closely with the people on this committee to make sure that good security is out there.
I understand that we're also studying a plan where deliveries will be directed in such a way that security will be managed properly. This committee is an ongoing thing. Actually, I think I have a meeting about it tomorrow or early next week. We've already had two meetings. We're trying to provide as much security as possible and we're cooperating with every other agency that is involved.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you.
Do you have a view or a reaction, Mr. Beaudry, to the fact that private vehicles can come in right off Wellington? Do you care to express a view about that?
Mr. Beaudry: I think we should make sure that there is security out there and that the vehicles are properly controlled. I can't say for sure how that will be finally implemented, but there is no doubt in my mind that we should make sure proper security is in place.
Mr. O'Brien: All right. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Fewchuk: What is the term of board members? Is it four years or five years? How long are you guys appointed for?
Mr. Beaudry: Do you mean the ETCs?
Mr. Fewchuk: Yes, like yourself, and all these members. When is -
Mr. Beaudry: Oh, the board members. The term is three years. There are fifteen members on the board.
Mr. Fewchuk: Do all the terms end at the same time every year?
Mr. Beaudry: No.
Mr. Fewchuk: How many positions would end in one year?
Mr. Beaudry: They're appointed for three years. For instance, there are five positions ending at this point in time. One cannot be renewed because she will have been on the board for six years, and four others who have been sitting on the board for three years could be renewed for an additional two years.
The president and vice-president can be from anywhere in Canada. Five members come from the national capital region, three from the Ontario side and two from the Quebec side. The last eight are picked from other regions of the country outside of the national capital region.
Mr. Fewchuk: You talked about your bridge. Where is the funding coming from? Is it totally federal or is your proposal one-third, one-third, one-third?
Mr. Beaudry: No, the funding is totally federal.
Mr. Fewchuk: Why is that totally federal when we don't need the bridge, when the two provinces need the bridge, and when, in the province I come from, if the local council wants a bridge, they have to have it supported 100% by the taxpayers who live there?
Mr. Beaudry: The Macdonald-Cartier Bridge was financed by Quebec, Ontario and the federal government. The Champlain Bridge happens to be in the ownership of the National Capital Commission, as is the Portage Bridge.
Mr. Fewchuk: But we don't need the bridge.
Mr. Beaudry: It needs to be rehabilitated today. If I go to Quebec or to Toronto and say, ``Would you please pay for one-third of that bridge?'', I know the answer ahead of time. I'm quite sure they'll say, ``It's your bridge, take care of it and do whatever you have to do with it.'' So it's our bridge.
Mr. Fewchuk: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Wappel, do you have a question?
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Sure, I have a couple of them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Does the National Capital Commission look after Stornoway?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: What's the current cost of maintaining that empty building?
Mr. Beaudry: It's about $37,000 a year.
Mr. Wappel: What is the legal requirement for that building? Is it only for the leader of the official opposition?
Mr. Beaudry: It is for the leader of the opposition at this point in time.
Mr. Wappel: Where does it say that?
Mr. Beaudry: I can't tell you where it says that, but I understand that it was a tribute that -
Mr. Wappel: Is it an act or is it a regulation? Is it a decision of your board or is it in some statute?
.1250
Mr. Beaudry: It was not a decision of our board. This much I can say. Whether or not it was a decision from cabinet at the time that the House was given, I'd have to verify, to be honest with you. I can't answer that.
I know that we have to maintain it. I know that we cannot lease it.
Mr. Wappel: Why?
Mr. Beaudry: We don't have permission to lease it. It's within the official residences and recognized as such. Most probably it has something to do with PCO, or maybe it's a cabinet decision. I can't say. I don't know. I can provide the answer, but I can't answer this.
Mr. Wappel: What I'm basically getting at is it seems as if there is no effort to be creative with respect to an empty building. You don't even seem to know the answer about whether you could lease it or whether you've made any inquiries as to leasing it or whether you've made any inquiries, for example, about whether the leader of the third party wished to rent it.
Mr. Beaudry: I wouldn't agree that I don't know anything about it. I know quite a bit about it.
Mr. Wappel: Well, then, tell me about it if you know about it.
Mr. Beaudry: But I may not know everything about it.
Mr. Wappel: You told me it can't be leased.
Mr. Beaudry: No, because it's the residence designed for the leader of the opposition. This is the way it's set up. It's like 24 Sussex. If, for some reason, the Prime Minister decides not to occupy 24 Sussex, surely I won't be able to put it in the Citizen and say ``24 Sussex is up for lease''.
As far as I'm concerned, the instructions that we have at NCC are that this residence is for the leader of the opposition, 24 Sussex is for the Prime Minister, and Rideau Hall is for the Governor General. This I know, but you are asking me specifically if it is in law or if it is a regulation. To this I say I don't know.
Mr. Wappel: My question is from where you take your instructions on that issue.
Mr. Beaudry: What do you mean, from where do I take my instructions?
Mr. Wappel: I think the question is fairly simple. You said that you have no mandate to lease Stornoway; you can't sell 24 Sussex. Who says that?
Mr. Beaudry: I didn't say that. I said that as far as I'm concerned and as far as I know, Stornoway is designated as the residence of the leader of the opposition. That's what I'm saying to you.
Mr. Wappel: Who designated it?
Mr. Beaudry: It was designated when I got on board at NCC. I took it for granted that it was the residence of the leader of the opposition because since it's been there, it is leaders of the opposition who have lived in it.
Mr. Wappel: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Beaudry: Nobody else has lived there.
Mr. Wappel: But we have now a situation that we've never had before.
Mr. Beaudry: I understand.
Mr. Wappel: I want you to find out for this committee, if you don't mind, what the foundation for your statement is that Stornoway cannot be leased. I'm not on this committee, I'm just substituting, so I'd appreciate it if you'd send it directly to my office as well. That's a simple question.
Mr. Beaudry: I've committed to that.
Mr. Wappel: Good.
You said in your submissions that the NCC is going to sell land that is not part of its mandate. I believe I've quoted you correctly there.
Mr. Beaudry: Not quite. We own about 10% of the land in the national capital region. What we are saying is that by reviewing our master plan at this point in time, our official plan - every six or seven years we do renew our official plan - we are trying to harmonize with RMOC and the regional municipalities on the other side of the river.
I'm saying that with the renewal and the study we are doing at the present time, with the long, the short and the mid-term planning we are doing... Some of the land we have that was expropriated some years ago or that was acquired some years ago - for instance, some of the corridors that were acquired some years ago - was acquired for a very specific reason: for transportation. It was acquired for that reason some 20 to 30 years ago.
Since then, jurisdiction on transportation has been given to the regional municipalities. The Alta Vista corridor, for instance, was under our jurisdiction, our ownership. We felt that this corridor would be better off in the regional municipality's ownership because it's their jurisdiction to take care of transportation. This happened when we made the deal with RMOC. We said to take the two bridges, Mackenzie and Laurier, and in exchange they would pay us what the Alta Vista corridor is worth and use it for their long-term transportation planning, which was done.
We divested that property because we felt it was not useful for the mandate we are pursuing. But at the time it was acquired, of course, there was a reason for it.
Mr. Wappel: This is what I'm trying to get at. At the time the land was acquired, it was acquired pursuant to what the board thought was its mandate at that time. As times change, the mandate changes as the board decides that the mandate changes - as opposed to the mandate being legislatively changed, for example.
.1255
Mr. Beaudry: No, the mandate comes from the legislature. It's in the law. We know what we have to do. What I'm saying is, circumstances are changing, the jurisdiction of transportation having been given to the regional government. Of course, if you had land at the time when no regional government was in existence, and you felt you had a responsibility for regional transportation...
For instance, the NCC in the 1970s was subsidizing both transportation commissions - OC Transpo and STO - on each side of the river. Money was given to both of them, because the NCC felt at that time they had a responsibility for regional transportation.
Since jurisdiction has been turned over to the region, we feel we don't have the jurisdiction any more. Therefore, the land that then was acquired for this purpose should be divested to the region if it's still in their plan to put a transitway through it, for instance.
The Chairman: Thank you.
In fairness, there are five minutes left, and Mr. Dubé hasn't used his time.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Dubé: I know that Mr. Bernier had specific questions to ask, and others on Ottawa.Mr. Beaudry, in your presentation, you spoke about the international level and an aspect of your mandate which was to promote Canadian pride and unity.
Pride is O.K.
Mr. Beaudry: And unity, too.
Mr. Dubé: As there are two aspects, we'll start with the first. How much do you spend on the international project?
Mr. Beaudry: About $250,000.
Mr. Dubé: Can you tell me what that consists of, roughly?
Mr. Beaudry: We developed a program to give an idea of Canada's importance internationally. Of course, it's not a large scale exhibit. You'll understand that $250,000 is not very much.
Mr. Dubé: I see that my colleagues are getting ready to leave and that time is almost up. Concerning the other aspect, it has to do with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Council on Canadian Unity, and so on.
At the National Capital Commission, where there have been a lot of cuts, where many employees have lost their job even if you've kept half of them in another form, I find it a bit strange that you should add Canadian unity to your concerns. For my part, the National Capital Commission's role is rather to ensure that the capital is beautiful, clean, interesting and proud.
Mr. Beaudry: I think that goes without saying. We have a program for families who come to the capital twice a year. Some of them come for Canada Day. Those families come from every province and territory. Twelve families come to the capital and stay with families in the area, on both sides of the river.
They spend five days in the capital. They are greeted by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Governor General of Canada. They visit museums and take part in Canada Day's activities. Friendships are formed during these visits. People realize that when they come to Ottawa, they can be proud of being Canadians because of what has been accomplished and what we will accomplish in the future.
They also see that people from other provinces that they meet here are people just like them who share the same values and that we have everything to gain by staying together rather than separating. Division means weakness whereas there is strength in unity.
Mr. Dubé: I understand, but I think you're stepping outside of your mandate, to my mind.
Mr. Beaudry: As to our mandate, the act doesn't say to promote Canadian unity and pride. However, the act stipulates that the NCC's mandate is to carry out long-term planning for the National Capital Region, set up programs which will make Canadians who come to the National Capital Region proud, to protect was exists already, such as monuments, museums, and so on, to protect treasures which are here and ensure that the capital is beautiful.
This means that in actual fact we are promoting pride and unity.
.1300
I invite you to be here on the next 1st of July. When there are 100,000 people on the Hill, noon and night for the show, you'll see how proud Canadians are to be Canadians and the friendships they form with other people from all over Canada. It is in that sense that I'm telling you that we promote Canadian pride and unity.
Mr. Dubé: I won't get into a longer discussion with you, Mr. Beaudry, but...
Mr.Beaudry: Because we're not on the same side?
Mr. Dubé: In all respects.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Dubé and Mr. Beaudry.
I'd like to make a comment. Mr. Beaudry, I didn't distribute your brief to the members of the committee because it is partly in English and partly in French. According to the Official Languages Act, it must be completely translated into each of the two languages.
So please, send members of the committee texts in French and in English, so as to comply with the act. I chose not to distribute it, because it wasn't in compliance with the requirements of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Beaudry: I agree. It will be my pleasure to distribute it in both languages.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Beaudry.
Mr. Beaudry: Thank you.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.