STANDING COMMITTEE ON
COMITÉ PERMANENT DU
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 5, 1998
The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln
(Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Order, please. We are here,
pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for consideration of
a cultural policy by the Standing Committee on Canadian
Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2), the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage is continuing its consideration of Canadian
We have the pleasure of welcoming the following witnesses:
from the National Gallery of Canada, Director Pierre Théberge and
Assistant Director Yves Dagenais; from the Canadian Museum of
Dr. George MacDonald, president and chief executive
and the Corporation Chair, Ms. Adrienne Clarkson; from the Canadian
Museum of Nature,
Ms. Joanne DiCosimo, president and CEO,
and Mr. Frank Ling, chairman of the
board of trustees;
and from the National Museum of Science and Technology,
Mr. Christopher Terry, director general of the
National Museum of Aviation.
As you know, we are carrying on with this study
of Canadian culture. There are four institutions
represented. At the same time, our members
would like to question you regarding the estimates
of the ministry regarding your institutions.
To allow time for questioning and interchange with
the members, I would suggest that each institution take
about ten minutes in a very informal setting rather
than make very formal presentations and tell us about
how you see the future of your particular institution
viewing the three main thrusts of our study: globalization
of commerce and trade and new intertrade agreements;
changing demographics in Canada; and the impact of
new technologies, the Internet and so forth,
on our cultural institutions.
You can choose the order, but maybe you can start in
the order in which you were named. We'll start
with Mr. Théberge and go on from there.
Mr. Pierre Théberge (Director, National Gallery of Canada):
Mr. Chairman, the Gallery's President, Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme, has
asked me to make his apologies to you. He regrets that he cannot be
I've distributed the notes for my presentation. The first few
pages are simply an overview of the past year. As you know, the
National Gallery of Canada has been very successful over the past
year, with shows like the Renoir exhibition, of which we are very
proud. To save time, I would like to go straight to the questions
that the Committee sent us in advance.
I will start with the questions about federal government
cultural support measures and their beneficial effects in our
sector, and then I will identify the measures that have not worked
quite so well.
It is obvious that as a National Gallery, we depend on the
generosity of the federal government. The government has a wide
range of means at its disposal to support its cultural objectives.
Its main instruments are direct ownership, i.e., the proprietorship
of organizations such as museums, galleries, archives, libraries,
broadcasting and film services like the CBC and the National Film
Board, and heritage and performing arts institutions and
facilities. Then there are also, of course, grants and
contributions to the operating and capital budgets of organizations
with arts or heritage missions.
Regulation is another means available to the federal
government. One example is the Copyright Act, which protects the
interests of creators and thus helps galleries; another example is
the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, designed to protect
valuable art objects from export. Another category would be the
measures giving tax deductions to taxpayers who make donations to
charity, including donations of works of art. These federal
government measures are extremely beneficial to Canada's galleries,
among others the National Gallery of Canada, which I represent
A number of these measures have been very successful. Some of
them, in particular parliamentary appropriations and the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act, have enabled Canadian museums and
galleries in general and our Gallery in particular to build and
maintain very beautiful collections of works of art from this
country. In return, the National Gallery of Canada is committed to
offering exhibitions, loans, education tools and expertise to
sister institutions, in Canada and abroad.
As you know, we have programs of travelling exhibitions
designed to make Canadians aware of the value of the Gallery's
permanent collection. We intend, over the next few years, to expand
this program of travelling exhibitions to include exhibitions
organized by other galleries in Canada and to send them on tour as
As you know, fewer and fewer Canadian galleries have the means
to send their exhibitions on tour, and we want to help share the
artistic wealth throughout this country, by including in our
programs not only works from our own collection, but also works
from other Canadian institutions. This is a measure that we're
going to discuss with our colleagues on the Canadian Art Museum
Directors Organization, which will be meeting in Ottawa at the end
The second question dealt with the impact of technology, but
first I would like go back to certain measures that we want to take
to share our collections with other galleries in Canada. I
mentioned travelling exhibitions, but we also want to take the
national collection of Canadian art. As you know, this collection
is huge. It has been building up since 1880, largely with the help
of federal funding. We believe that we now have enough substance in
these collections to be able to share and place on more or less
long-term loan certain parts of the Canadian collection in other
This is something we are also going to discuss with
our partners at the meeting of Canadian art museum
directors, the idea that we would share not only
travelling exhibitions but also the permanent
collection of Canadian art with other institutions.
This is something that has been in our strategic plan
for a certain number of years, but we want to implement
this plan starting this year, with discussions on
how to implement it with our colleagues across the
We would also like to introduce a program of sharing
ownership of acquisitions of works of art.
We want to make co-acquisitions with other Canadian galleries,
so that we can share the resources. What this would entail would be
that we would buy, in collaboration with other galleries, works of
art that we could then share and exhibit in different places on the
basis of agreements that might be something like so many years in
Montreal, so many years in Winnipeg, so many years somewhere else.
This would be a new program. It has already been made part of our
strategic plan, but we would like to activate it more formally.
We would also like to be more involved in the
co-production of exhibitions from across the country.
We are producing a lot of exhibitions in-house,
from our own resources. We are also taking exhibitions
coming from other institutions, travelling exhibitions.
We will be taking, for example, in 2000, the Krieghoff
exhibition being prepared by the Art Gallery of Ontario
for circulation across the country. It will be coming
Another thing we would like to get into is co-producing
exhibitions, in other words sharing the organizational work, on
research, financing and preparing the catalogue, with other
institutions. We already have two such projects under way: a co-
production project with the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, for an
exhibition on modern art in Mexico between 1900 and 1950, and two
other co-production projects involving the Musée du Québec, the
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and of course the National Gallery. We
would like to extend this system of co-production to other museums
and other projects.
There are some of the measures that we intend to pursue thanks
to the funding we receive from the federal government. Recently we
produced an audio guide on our Canadian collections, which is
available free of charge to visitors to the Gallery. We would like
to extend production of audio guides to our European collections as
In January, we intend to launch an extension to our WebSite,
which in English is called the Learning Centre and in French
L'Art/thèque. We are doing this in collaboration with IBM. It's one
way of using electronic means to make the Gallery's collections and
programs more accessible.
We also intend to continue increasing our self-generated
revenues. Thanks to exhibitions like the Renoir and the Picasso, we
have had some very sizable sponsorships from the private sector.
We would like to have more support from the private
sector. We have just hired a deputy director for
development, and the museum's foundation will be
much more active than in the past in seeking more
sponsorships and seeking more support from the private
sector. Together, we think, we can continue to
better serve the Canadian public.
Now I'd like to go back to your questions about new
technologies. I mentioned our web site, which has been in action
since 1996 but which, as I said, is going to be expanded thanks to
what we call the Learning Centre. The Gallery data and records are
being converted to the Collection Management System, which will
make the collection still more accessible to other museums and to
We are very involved in the use of new electronic media.
Obviously, we will never be able to make sure that all Canadians
can come to Ottawa to see the national collection. We will never be
able to send every work in the collection on tour. The electronic
media are thus a way for the public all across Canada to have
access to the national collection and to obtain information,
sometimes very scholarly information, about the collections.
With regard to the question on freer trade in the cultural
sector, I would like to say that it does not directly impact on the
activities of the National Gallery.
The liberalization or opening up of markets
to other countries is not affecting us very directly,
because we are not in the business of selling services
directly, but as you know, the museum has collaborated
in the past very well with international institutions.
These include the Musée d'Orsay, Louvre, Metropolitan Museum
of Art, Chicago Art Institute, Kimbell Foundation
in Fort Worth, and Museum of Modern Art in New York.
We want to continue developing international contacts.
Our professional staff is communicating constantly
with other institutions in order to bring to Canada
the great works of art but also in order to have
Canadian art seen abroad.
We have two projects in the works: a Group of Seven exhibition
in Mexico, and in Sweden and some of the other Scandinavian
countries. We have also been approached by the Embassy of China
about putting together a Group of Seven exhibition that could
travel to Beijing and Shanghai.
Of course, we need funding to keep on with these projects but
we'll also have funding from the private sector.
With respect to demographic change, all studies indicate that
galleries and museums attract adults, children ,and above all
families. As you know, we have educational programs that are very
well-designed to welcome all segments of the public.
Our premises are generally user-friendly because we have
adequate services. We want the Gallery to be perceived as a place
where families are welcome and where everyone, adults and children,
has access to the collections as well as to the temporary
You are familiar with the statistics that we cite: by the year
2016, one Canadian in five will belong to a visible minority, which
will double the proportion of persons in this group of the
population from 10% in 1991 to 20% in 2016.
Another factor affecting social cohesion is the growing urban
aboriginal population. Its growth rate is double that of the
population as a whole and it is expected that this group will grow
by almost 50% to reach 1.6 million individuals by the year
2016. The Gallery will have to continue adapting to these
phenomena, of which we are very much aware.
The federal government's role in the future will be to support
the cultural industries sector. We still think a strong and
energetic federal presence in the arts sector is essential to the
transmission of Canada's cultural treasures to all Canadians.
I mentioned the major federal agencies and the federal
government's role in continuing to support those agencies. Most
corporations and agencies that receive grants from the federal
government have for some years now been looking to the private
sector as well. This is a growing source of revenue, but its growth
must not make us forget the importance of the federal government's
role in supporting the arts.
We recommend that the private and public sectors invest in new
funds to help museums with travelling exhibitions and other forms
of outreach (such as co-productions, co-acquisitions, a national
program of exhibition exchanges, etc.). We want to continue sharing
collections with other Canadian institutions. Long-term loans are
one method of doing this.
With respect to concrete formulas which have been or will be
put forward by the federal government, there is one measure that is
currently under discussion. I know there were meetings recently
with officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage on the
subject of developing a National Indemnification Program for
This is a very important program, the indemnity program.
I know there are discussions with the heritage department
on this. It would help not only the art museum
but also other sectors. I know my colleagues are very
interested in this program. I think it would allow
more Canadians to have more access to many
important artifacts and works of art and to develop the
cultural sector in Canada.
As well, in terms of financial responsibility
it would be a great help to not just federal
institutions but also those all across the country.
We would also like the federal government to be able to
stabilize the MAP and to inject new money for travelling
exhibitions and for outreach. There is a practical aspect to our
desire to do more outreach. Naturally, the institutions that host
our exhibitions, or that would like to host portions of our
permanent collection, have to be able to pay for these programs.
Currently, financing fluctuates quite a bit, and it would be
desirable for new money—we wouldn't ask for extraordinary
amounts—to be injected into these sectors.
We would also like the government to continue encouraging
private charitable donations and gifts of works of art by private
individuals. This is of concern to our colleagues at other museums
and galleries as well, because one way of enriching the collections
is to have enough funding to acquire new works. Acquisition funds
should be increased, but we must also protect and strengthen the
program of donations to cultural institutions. I'm speaking on
behalf of my colleagues everywhere in this country. This formula
has been extremely enriching and we must make sure that it remains
as effective as ever.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge.
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson (Chairwoman, Canadian Museum of
Civilization Corporation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for having us appear before you
today. I think we really want to focus on
some large questions you have put. You
have all the details from our briefing notes and our
annual reports. You know what we do. Basically, you
can see that museum of ours across the river, as you see
the Musée des beaux-arts—the beauty of them. You know
they're very popular. Our museum is very popular.
We are technologically linked up. We have a website.
We are digitizing all our products. We are doing all these
things, and we are doing them under a great deal of
constraint financially, because we really have been
losing money over the years. We have 36% less money
now than we had four or five years ago, and it will
continue to be this way.
However, we are trying, because of this, to create
partnerships with the private sector, with
fund-raising. We have a very active development area,
and of course we are doing everything we can to boost
our attendance, which is excellent, but we always want
more. We have seasonal fluctuations, of course,
and we are very much dependent upon the kind of tourism
we get in the national capital area.
That said, the dollars are important. I think the
ability to appear before a committee like yours is to
say that our heritage is in our museums as artifacts
but also as concrete examples of the history of our
A recent study, less than a year old, of the Dominion
Institute pointed out—and I think many of you know
this, but I think it's worth underlining all the time—that
64% of youth interviewed between the ages of 18
and 24 did not even know when the Confederation of Canada
had occurred. Over half of them didn't know the
century in which Canada was founded. When they
were asked who Canada had fought against in the First
World War, 39% thought we had fought against
France, Britain or Russia, and one in ten had no
answer at all. Only 24% of university-educated people
between the ages of 18 and 24 knew we had
repatriated our Constitution from Britain. And on and
on and on.
So with that background of the falling of the
knowledge of history comes our paradox, which is that
we are the repositories of the living elements of our
history, our civilization objects,
our artistic and our natural ones. That is the dilemma for the
future. We have a problem, which is to put those
things together. While our museums are more and
more popular, while people are coming more and more to
our shows, we have this falling ability to understand
what our nation is really about, and we have a role to
play in that nation, because we are
heritage and because we are responsible for everything that has to
do with heritage. Another essential thing is to have a vision of
the future. That's what counts, not just dollars. The dollar is a
concrete, unique and necessary symbol for something that in our
eyes is more important, the vision we need to continue as a
country, with our heritage as it exists now.
There are challenges in the global marketplace. Globalization
is a very important concern for us as museums. As Mr. Théberge
said, we have always had partnerships with other major museums in
the world so that we could organize exhibitions and obtain shared
subsidies to finance major exhibitions.
The big problem is not simply globalization, but also the
monopolizing of our heritage by outsiders.
When we are talking about globalization, let's be very
certain that we don't just think it's every country
trying to get into every other country's market.
We are up against a juggernaut of informational
monopoly, which is buying up the heritage of other
Let me be more specific. There is a scenario under
which you could see Microsoft, an American company,
or Ted Turner, an American company, buying up all
the archives of say the National Film Board of Canada,
or all our objects, or the rights to use them on the
the rights to use the visual ones of the National
Gallery. They would have that and say, “Look, we'll give you
this amount of money”—a huge amount of money—“and you'll be
able to run your little museums and have your
people come into them and have your national `ideas'.
We'll even give you money to acquire.”
Incidentally, we have not been able to acquire. We don't
have an acquisitions budget any more. We do acquire,
through donations and through people giving us
opportunities to acquire things, but we do not have an
acquisitions budget any more.
But you could see that if these
large American organizations are willing to put out
money to buy up images and objects, they would
therefore control them. We could be asked to license
them back at not very much money initially, and it might
look like a very attractive prospect. This is
something that I think we have to address as a nation,
and this is something that I think your particular committee
has to look at, because I think it is a very real
Right now there's a new museum getting a lot
of attention. It is the Bilbao Museum created by
Frank Gehry in the Basque area of
Spain, in an underdeveloped, depressed, sub-industrial
area. This museum was created with money from
the Spanish government, at all levels—a budget of over $100
million, I believe—using one of the most wonderful and
unique architects in the world, Frank Gehry, who happens
to be a Canadian by birth. It is an example of a new
kind of museum imperialism, or colonization may be a
nicer word, or partnership, which is that it belongs to
the Guggenheim really. It will show American art,
but it has been built by the Spanish with Spanish
If you read the words of Thomas Krens, who is the
curator of this museum, the Guggenheim, he is saying
this is the kind of thing they want to do all
over the world. They have done
it in smaller ways in places like Salzberg already. This is not
going to stop with Europe. We're their closest
neighbour. Could be we given a museum? Could we be
asked to provide something in which they would then
provide the content?
There are all kinds of things
like this that I think your committee should be
addressing itself to.
The other things you are asking us about we can
discuss absolutely. They're here, and we can give you
facts and figures about all of that, and you know that.
But this is the real problem for the future, and I think we
have to address ourselves to it. If we don't, we're
going to suddenly have one of our institutions
faced with this terrific deal, where somebody like
a Bill Gates or a Ted Turner is going to say, “We'll give
you a billion dollars. You'll never have to worry about money
from the government again. You'll never have to follow the Auditor
General's rules. You'll never have to really talk to
the standing committees again. You'll never have to
do anything like that again. Everything is set.”
That's what I think we should be addressing ourselves to, which
is not at all short term, and it's not even long term;
it's our medium term, because it's right here now.
I don't want talk too long. We can discuss other things later
on. I just wanted to mention that this is very important.
I'll let my colleagues have the floor. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Clarkson.
I think you've left a real challenge before us, and I'm
glad you addressed it. It certainly merits a lot
of thinking on our part.
Mr. Frank Ling (Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
Canadian Museum of Nature): Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for inviting us to outline the
accomplishments and plans of the Canadian Museum of
Nature and to take part in the round-table discussion
about cultural policy.
To respect the time limits, we will briefly summarize
our recent accomplishments, current activities and
plans for the immediate future.
I'm happy to be able
to say that what I consider one of the museum's major
accomplishments is here with me today. Ms. Joanne
DiCosimo took over the role of president July 1, 1997,
having been chosen from among eight competitive
candidates from across Canada. She was previously the
director of the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Ms.
DiCosimo had an impressive fundraising record in
Winnipeg and she has already assembled a strong
development team and program at the CMN.
Of even greater importance, in a relatively short
period of less than a year our new president has
instilled an enormous amount of staff trust and
confidence and been a catalyst for a new dynamism
within the institution. With your support we are now
able to once again move forward and look outward as a
It is my pleasure to introduce Ms. DiCosimo to speak
about the CMN's accomplishments and plans.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Joanne DiCosimo (President and Chief Executive
Officer, Canadian Museum of Nature): Thank you, Frank.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's a
privilege to be invited to speak to you today. As Mr.
Ling said, I will give a bit of the accomplishments,
although those are largely contained in the brief. I
want mostly to tell you about our current activities
and our future plans. Some of those touch directly on
the questions you've put to us today, and will lead
naturally to the discussion that will follow.
I will start with an event that was a watershed in the
history of the Canadian Museum of Nature's service to
Canada. Just about a year ago, on May 9, 1997, the new
collections and research facility, the Natural Heritage
Building, opened in Aylmer, Quebec. Just prior to
this, on March 31, the museum had completed the mammoth
task of packing, moving, and rehousing the 10 million
specimens that comprise the national natural science
In addition to congratulating the staff and Board on this
remarkable achievement—which pre-dates my arrival—, there are
three things about this project that I would like to bring to the
attention of the Committee.
First, the development of this new facility and the re-housing
of the national collection have addressed the grave concerns that
existed across Canada about the collection's safety. The National
Heritage Building thus made it possible for the Museum to fulfill
its essential public trust in this regard. This major step forward
will be acknowledged publicly in June when the staff of the
Canadian Museum of Nature receive the Canadian Museums
Association's Award for Outstanding Achievement in collections
Secondly, the new facility was built using existing
financial resources. The federal government awarded no
new or additional funding for that project. It's very
important that be understood. Rather,
the Museum of Nature reallocated resources formerly
spent on 11 different rental site leases and
collaborated with a private developer in order to build
the Natural Heritage Building.
Thirdly, on this point, you will recall the concerns
expressed by the environmental community when the
Aylmer site was allocated for the new facility.
To address these concerns directly we've developed, in
partnership with a number of experts and public
interest groups, a strategic plan for the responsible
management of the wetlands and the museum's facilities.
This environmental stewardship plan and program will be
presented to the public in late June of this year.
In addition to that, we've begun an environmental
education fund, and to date have raised approximately
$30,000 from private industry to support this aspect of
the environmental stewardship program.
By the time of my arrival in July, the Canadian Museum of
Nature had experienced approximately five years of the kind of
activity that engenders inward organizational focus. The
construction projects and the re-housing of the collection are
examples of this essentially internal focus. The staff and the
Board were eager to look outward once again and to focus on the
community in whose interest the institution is established—on the
Canadian people and on fulfilling the special responsibilities of
a national Museum. National museums of course exist for national
Because all museums, universities, scientific agencies
and others are experiencing identical challenges of
funding and concern for the gaps in the knowledge base
and in the scientific record, it was appropriate that
the Museum of Nature begin a dialogue with that
To this end, during the period of October 1997 to
December 1997 we conducted a national consultation
process. The goals of our process were to gather the
views and perspectives of the broader scientific and
museum community and explore the potential for
Specifically, we wanted to know what the appropriate
role of a national museum of the natural sciences in
1998 and beyond is, and how we can work together to
achieve our common purposes.
We travelled to six cities in that time period. We
held discussions with forty to fifty people in each
centre, and we've received input from an additional
approximately 100 people in writing. We've also had
face-to-face meetings, other than the formal sessions,
with many partners, including the Canadian Society of
Zoologists, the Canadian Nature Federation, and many
others. These meetings to revitalize longstanding
relationships as well as engage new partners and
friends will be ongoing work for the institution.
Using the information gathered to date and the views and
perspectives of our very talented and dedicated staff, we have
developed a plan for the Museum in the immediate future. The Museum
will be renewed and will increase its public value by focusing
institutional energy, knowledge, skills and resources on the
achievement of four objectives, as follows:
First, its national service and impact will be increased, by
creating and maintaining national networks in each of the
scientific disciplines in which the Museum operates and initiating
a consortium of natural history museums and related organizations;
by posting descriptions of major collection holdings and scientific
expertise on our WebSite and thereby facilitating access to them;
and revitalizing its program of travelling exhibits, specifically
responding to the expressed desire of Canadians to see their
These are examples of strategies that will be adopted to
achieve each of these objectives. The full plan is of course more
The second objective is to demonstrate the value of
the work done by the institution, to make it visible
The further strategies in fulfillment of that include
the further development of a public function at Aylmer,
possibly through tours of the collections areas, and
certainly through wetlands interpretation; the
continuation of our strong program of popular and
scientific publications—as I think you know, these
range from the best-selling dinosaur eggs booklet and
model in the Tiny Perfect Dinosaur series with
Somerville Press, to very essential reference tools
like the Insects of the Yukon, or
Lichens of North America, a current
co-production with Yale University Press, as well, of
course, as the ongoing publication by research staff in
a range of scientific journals; the further development
of the web site—clearly another strategy; and a new
opportunity to work with the Quebec community with the
launch of the Canadian tour of Monarcha:
Butterflies Beyond Boundaries in Sherbrooke in June
of this year.
Our third objective is to put in place the basic
operating systems, and by that we mean human and
technical, to support all institutional work.
There are two main basic technical objectives. One
is of course year 2000 readiness. The second is the
creation of an electronic record of all collections
data, thus supporting Canada's contribution to the
essential task of monitoring biodiversity on a global
We also have a number of strategies aimed at further
strengthening and addressing the essential human
resources of the Museum of Nature, and our continuing
work to achieve an open and participatory planning
process with the rest of the nation has been a part of
Finally, our fourth objective is to increase
self-generated revenue. Our focus here is to build the
fund-raising and revenue-generating capacities of the
museum. It's necessary both to support the
mission-critical programs, as has been discussed, and
in our case to conduct a much-needed capital campaign
to address the chronic needs of the heritage facility,
the Victoria Memorial Museum Building at
McLeod Avenue and Metcalfe Street, which is the
main public face of the Museum of Nature.
In emphasizing these aspects of the past, current and future
plans of the Canadian Museum of Nature, I do not wish to de-
emphasize the considerable achievements of the institution in the
two years since our last appearance here. These accomplishments are
considerable and, as Mr. Link mentioned, are highlighted in the
brief contained in your information package.
I'm going to mention just a few of them.
Attendance has increased, as has our market share in the
region. Last year, our collections staff respond to over 1,400
specimen loan requests, despite the constraints of the move.
Thirty-seven new species were named and described. The Arctic
Odyssey exhibition was developed in cooperation with the community
of Igloolik, effectively twinning science and traditional
knowledge. A travelling version of this exhibition will celebrate
the creation of Canada's newest territory of Nunavut next year.
In closing, I want to note that the concerns, issues,
and work in the natural sciences transcend political
and geographical boundaries. We know that Canadians
share an intense pride and a deeply held value for the
incredible physical beauty and variety of this country.
We also share a concern for the natural world and for
its future because it has, of course, a very direct
bearing on the future of the human race.
When polled, we said that projects to sustain the
natural environment were the legacy projects we
preferred when choosing projects for the millennium. We
at the Museum of Nature have assumed nature's view on
this event. We call our project “Just Another
Millennium” because we want to insert that
longer view into the discussions.
As the members of this committee consider the
development of a cultural policy to guide the country
for the next millennium, I respectfully request that
the term be understood to include our science culture
just as our shared Canadian heritage must include our
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. DiCosimo.
Mr. Christopher J. Terry (Director General,
National Museum of Aviation): Thank you, Mr.
First, I would like to proffer the apologies of our
chair, Dr. David Strangway, and our director,
Dr. Geneviève Sainte-Marie, who were
unable to be with you today.
One of the things, of course, about following
distinguished colleagues who have commented on these
areas is that many of the things one wishes to say have
already been dealt with, and with great eloquence, by
those colleagues. So I will not go through all of the
notes that I have prepared here because I think you've
heard most of the issues raised already.
I would like to focus more on the scientific and
technological aspects of Canadian culture and our
heritage in the context of the points you have
First, though, let me say that, as our brief points out,
the government has given our corporation a mandate for
the preservation of a national collection and the
dissemination of knowledge about the scientific and
technological heritage of Canada. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage stated when she appeared before the
committee in November that
we need, “as a government, as a country and as a
committee...to ensure that we safeguard our capacity to
tell our own stories”.
In essence, this is what we are committed to doing.
By fostering an understanding of our scientific and
technological heritage and how that heritage has
contributed to the development of Canada as a country,
we can build pride in our achievements and
stimulate interest in our future.
Science and technology have played an integral part in
almost every aspect our our society, and have done so
for countless decades. Whether in transportation by
air or rail, the development of our natural
resources, helping us to learn how to cope with the
realities of living in our climate, or growing
food for domestic consumption and export, science and
technology have had pervasive impacts.
As the committee is well acquainted with our
corporation and its sites, let me just say that we
carry out our mandate through the activities of our
three museums. There's the National Museum of Science
and Technology on St. Laurent Boulevard, Agriculture Museum
at the Central Experimental Farm, and National Aviation
Museum at Rockcliffe Airport.
These museums hold magnificent collections that
richly illustrate our many accomplishments in the
field of science and technology. We also hold
artifacts that demonstrate that Canadians have suffered a
few reverses too, but we don't gloss over the fact that
we have had reverses. It's part of an evolutionary
We manage these three facilities and their
associated collections and activities on the smallest
budget of any of the national museum corporations, $22
million in this fiscal year, and we record almost
700,000 visits to our sites each year, almost half of
which come from people who live beyond the national
The effect of program review and other financial
restraints throughout this decade has been profound.
As with our colleagues, we received a full third less
in our allocation than we did several years ago.
though this process was, it has hastened our evolution
into an organization with solid entrepreneurial
instincts and a strong track record of success in
forging beneficial partnerships with the private sector
and our not-for-profit colleagues.
The need to re-engineer our organization in the face
of reduced resources occurred simultaneously with the
advent of the information highway as a new means of
communication with large numbers of people. We
seized the opportunities that this presented some five
years ago with the creation of our first electronic
encyclopedia. This was done in conjunction with a
variety of private sector partners who wished to use
real content as a trial for the transmission of
multimedia information over standard telephone lines.
The success of this, which was recognized by several
awards has given rise to several derivatives of this
project, the most recent of which was a further
groundbreaking multimedia application on the
ill-starred Avro Arrow. This application has been used
by Bell Canada to test the feasibility of broad-band
transmissions into individual residences. The
application, which was paid for in full by Bell Canada,
is in the process of being installed in the National
Our work in the electronic world has sensitized us to
a vast range of issues, ranging from copyright to the
optimum resolution of images intended only for display
on monitor screens. It has also led us into other
partnership arrangements with Industry Canada and local
social agencies across the country whereby we have
digitized vast parts of our image collections to permit
them to be used on SchoolNet and mounted on our own
This experience has proven conclusively
that disadvantaged young people can, when appropriately
encouraged, use modern technologies to accomplish these
tasks, thereby gaining valuable experiences and
contributing to the public good.
Current and emerging information technologies
therefore present rich opportunities to expand our
reach, publish in virtual form material of very
specialized nature, to reach directly into every school
in Canada, provide access to information about our
collections and our substantial image banks, browse our
library catalogues and archival records, and gain rapid
access to our knowledge workers.
This latter issue has become significant for us. We
are answering hundreds of questions every month that
are received by our web sites. This fosters a dialogue
between our museums and their vast network of clients
of all ages, pursuits, and specialized interests.
We have learned that change is vital to continued
success, elegance of design does count, and content
does attract users. Far from using this technology
only as an electronic billboard and an event reminder,
we see it as a cost-effective way for us to share
information of proven interest and knowledge that stems
from an analysis of this base information. It's a
value-added approach that's quite consistent with
contemporary marketing practice.
I should also mention that these electronic
technologies have also permitted us to provide new
experiences to the visitors of our museums with the
introduction of virtual reality devices and simulators,
which add considerably to their experience.
We envisage that we will continue to use these
platforms to broaden our audiences and provide them
with useful content, because the content is our most
significant market advantage, and as you heard my
colleagues reflect, other people fully recognize this
I should say, though, that in doing this, we do not
believe that the real visit is a thing of the past.
Only a face-to-face visit with the last generation of
steam locomotives at the science and technology museum
properly conveys the majesty of these legendary
machines, and no photograph will ever convey the impact
of the severed front fuselage of the Avro Arrow on
display at the National Aviation Museum.
Our research shows quite clearly that visitors come to
see real things. Their appetite for this may have been
stimulated by images, virtual or otherwise, but in the
final analysis, visitors do tell us that there's no
substitute for personal exposure.
In this respect, it is appropriate for government to
maintain its role as the gatherer and keeper of a
representative collection reflecting the history of the
country and its people. The continued existence of
such collections and their supporting documentation
provides tangible evidence of the transformation of
this country, its economy, and its people. It also
helps to demystify the past and reduce to reality many
of the stylized views about the past and its influence
on the present that permeate much of our thinking.
With a commitment to preserve our material culture,
however, goes an obligation to look after it properly,
and here our system does not always accord appropriate
importance to meeting that obligation. We in
particular have been working for over 30 years to
secure proper housing for some of our aviation and rail
We also run a danger of being unable to provide space
for even modest growth in such collections. By their
nature, museum collections must evolve if they are to
continue to be representative and relevant. This is
not an advocacy position for unbridled growth. Given
the opportunity, I could cover the 50-odd hectares of
Rockcliffe Airport in about six months if I were to
take that irresponsible approach, but we never would.
But it does point out that modest net growth will be
required to accommodate new artifacts added to
collections, and it must be accommodated.
Apart from the issue of housing artifacts, I would
also like to comment briefly on something my colleagues
have mentioned: travelling exhibitions. As they have
found, travelling exhibitions serve many useful
functions. They enable parts of national collections to
be seen in the far reaches of the country; they expose
artifacts that might not otherwise be seen, because
they're not required for exhibition purposes in their
home museums; and probably most important, they assist
many of the smaller institutions across the country to
expand their offerings and therefore develop their own
audiences, and this ultimately rebounds to the benefit of
all of them.
Our experience is that many of the museums in our
community of technology-oriented institutions simply
cannot afford the costs of bringing travelling
exhibitions in. Although steps have also been taken
recently to reduce one of the costs, many of our
colleagues still can't afford the costs that remain.
Consequently, we have had to make the decision that if we
feel it's important for travelling exhibitions to be
seen in various parts of the country, we've had to bear
some of the costs ourselves.
Given the powerful ability of artifacts to tell
stories of national significance, this might be an area
for further discussion about useful initiatives that
might be implemented at the federal level.
The final thing I'd like to touch on is demographic
change and its impact on cultural policy. The nature
and extent of demographic change in Canada over the
next generation has been the subject of extensive
public discussion in recent years. We must be one of
the few countries in the world where such a treatment
has become a best-seller. We are aware of the aging of
the post-war generation, the decline in fertility
rates, increase in life expectancies of both men and
women, the increase in single-parent families and in
families formed from second marriages, and the change
in the profile of new arrivals to Canada as to both
ethnicity and value. All of these things have been
We are also only too aware of findings about the
knowledge of our history, also mentioned earlier, and
of concern to us in particular, of the seeming aversion
to education and careers in the sciences and associated
fields. I do say “seeming” because we do see on a
regular basis wonderful examples of highly motivated
people who need no encouragement to pursue such
careers, but they do not constitute a majority.
The need to increase the level of general scientific
literacy in Canada is critical. Given the dependency
ratios forecast for the next 30 years, during the
retirement age of the dominant post-war generation,
which I presume means all of us in this room, it will
become imperative that we produce as many skilled
knowledge workers as possible to take account of the
increased responsibility they will be called upon to
shoulder in looking after us.
We see museums
in general playing an important role in an overall
strategy to develop a well-educated workforce, and we
see our three museums in particular as having the
potential to play a significant role in the fields of
science and technology.
I would quickly add that although we continue to focus
much of our energy on young people, we have also come
to the conclusion that we should not restrict our focus
to young people. In fact we've started to have some
very real and positive success with older people, who
are in their own right just as interested in learning
about science and technology as their children are.
Demographic change therefore brings with it the growth
of non-traditional markets, fragmentation in
traditional ones, a critical need to encourage
development of high skill levels and competencies, and
a better comprehension of science and technology issues
in the population.
The Chairman: Mr. Terry, are you ready to conclude
Mr. Christopher Terry: Yes.
Museums are not the only solution. They are part of
it, and we have been thinking about how they can play
pivotal roles in the overall strategy to increase
literacy in the fields of science and technology.
That overview gives you some sense of the issues we
have been addressing in recent years, our views on
where they stand, and some of the things we foresee
ourselves doing to deal with them in the future.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Terry.
I'm opening the meeting to questions from the members.
I would suggest members choose who to address their
questions to, and I would suggest a free-flowing
dialogue so we can have an interchange, rather than a
very formalized format.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank all the members of the museum for
coming here, especially Adrienne Clarkson, who I met
for three weeks, and as a credit to her, she didn't lobby
I escaped your lobby in the three weeks, which I do
From the perspective of the official opposition,
museums are an important part of retaining our culture.
That's been mentioned a couple of times by many of
As I listened to your presentation, there seemed to me
to be three things coming out of all of this. The
first one is of course the funding, which is curtailing
some of the activities you want to do. But I was
very curiously struck when Mr. Christopher Terry said
that, and perhaps that is a point to ponder.
With the smaller cuts you have taken, the museums have
to become more entrepreneurial, and as they become more
entrepreneurial, they are responding more and more to
the needs of Canadians, which is a very good situation.
It is excellent. I would like to commend the museums
for doing that. That is the road to go in the future.
So while government has a role to play, a fine
balance needs to be created so the museums do not
become dependent on the government and lose their
entrepreneurial skills. In the final analysis,
entrepreneurial skills will take the museums where they
want to go: responding to the market.
All these great museums are housed in the national
capital, which is not in the centre of Canada. Canada
is a vast country. In my 20 years out in the west, we
haven't seen much happening in the way of your bringing
the national treasures out. In your briefs here you
have been talking about the travelling exhibitions,
which are to take the national treasures out.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Forget it. Just because you're
from Ottawa doesn't mean anything.
Canadians right across the nation want to see their
treasures. After all, it's taxpayers' money going
in there. It's their thing. And not all can afford
to come here.
You have mentioned the difficulties and the costs
associated with travelling. The art is going
outside, and when you move it from its housing, what
will happen here as well? I say that is a challenge
you have, and we have as well, to see how we can do
We would like to have some dialogue with you as to the
constraints you have and how we can help get the
treasures to Canadians. That is key; it's very
important. All of you emphasize it, and I'm
emphasizing it very strongly, because museums no longer
have to be looking inward. You have the web site,
the new technology, and that does help you to a degree, but
as I think one of the speakers said, you have to see it to
really appreciate it.
The third one—and that's what Adrienne said, which I
guess will come back to the committee—is this
museum in Spain you're talking about. You're talking
about the great
dollars that can pour in. Did I understand you right?
You said these museums were just going to show
American artifacts and that's all?
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: This Bilbao museum is
a branch of the Guggenheim Museum of New York.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The question I am asking you is
this. If there is one that shows up in this part of the
world, in Canada, why would I, as a Canadian, want to
go and see that and not go to my own museums?
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: That's a good question.
When you think that in Spain there is the Prado,
which is one of the greatest repositories of European
art.... We're just talking about European art here;
we'll say we're in Europe. The Prado, the Louvre, and
the National Gallery in London probably are the three
greatest repositories of European art.
Why would anyone go to a museum that has been built as
an American museum, putting in American modern art?
Well, that's called marketing, Mr. Obhrai.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It's true that's called
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: That's called
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But you have the best marketing
tool: the history of Canada for Canadians.
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: Absolutely. I'm
saying we do. But we have to be aware of the fact that
there are other people out there thinking in different
We are trying to market our things. We are
trying to market what we have. But we must never be
blind to the fact that other people have different
priorities. When I say they got the Spanish
government to put up the money for this building and
then they filled it with American art, it does seem
odd, doesn't it? But that is what happened. And that
will happen more and more, because there is a kind of
If you see the pictures of where this building is
located in this industrial area, which is very run
down, in Bilbao, you'll see that it was partly a kind
of downtown regeneration project, because it's in the
middle of a rail yard and a bridge and a rundown series
of warehouses. So it was presented in a number of very
attractive ways to the people there, who were told, “Look, if
you just build this museum, we'll make sure you get
hundreds of thousands of tourists”. And they are getting
hundreds of thousands of tourists.
George MacDonald has just been there and I'm going
next week, actually, to do a program on it.
Gehry is a Canadian and had been planning to do
we did a program on him three years ago when he was
planning it. So I've been tracking this for some time in
my other life, but I'm not going to be able to see it
until next week. George MacDonald has just been,
Dr. George MacDonald (President and Chief
Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization
Corporation): I could just mention the fact that it
was a shock to me to see the Bellas Artes Museum,
which is just a block away from the new museum, and it
has really one of the very best medieval collections in
Spain and western Europe. There was no one in that
building; they were all over in the Guggenheim museum. It
was a bit of an annoyance to think that the attraction was
really the building itself, because it is so radical, and
that it was, in a way, a Canadian product. The architect,
Frank Gehry, grew up in Toronto and a lot of his
training was there.
There's no doubt about it. The place of pride inside
the museum is for the American nouveau artists and
modernists that have not been exposed much in Europe.
But I had exactly the same reactions, and this morning when I
heard Adrienne's reactions to it, I was quite
surprised. I saw it as the same kind of imperialism, in a
sense, as she did.
This was the thing that came across most
clearly—that in creating venues for American
content, it is really just adding one more level to the
kind of saturation and domination we see in the movie
Now, I think there are things we can do in this country
to address the fact that American marketing and
production of all sorts of entertainment and
informational products is so successful. I think one
of the ones we did do was to develop a technology of
the large-screen theatres, the so-called IMAX
theatres, and that took Canadian architectural design
for theatres, production companies, producers and
I remarked just recently an article in the Montreal
Gazette that talked about the fact that James
Cameron had come to our world premiere of
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm just trying to understand.
Is this actually a very significant threat, or is this a
challenge to you people?
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: I think it's both.
Dr. George MacDonald: Yes.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, and maybe the threat is not...I
mean, like my question, who's going to go and see
American when Canadian history is available to
The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai, there are still—
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let me finish—
The Chairman: Can I come back to you,
just to give a chance to the others?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Sure.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to you all. I have a number of
questions, some of which are very technical. I don't know whether
it would be possible to have the figures for the past few years on
attendance and clientele? Has there been an increase or a decrease?
How are you adapting to your clientele?
Mr. Pierre Théberge: With reference to the National Gallery?
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yes, and any of the others as well.
I would like to know how things are going.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: You want the attendance statistics?
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Yes.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: I'm going to ask my colleague, Mr.
Dagenais, who is the Gallery's Assistant Director, to talk about
attendance at the Gallery.
Mr. Yves Dagenais (Assistant Director, National Gallery of
Canada): Over the year ending March 31, 1998, we welcomed 772,000
visitors to the Gallery. Obviously the Renoir exhibit had a lot to
do with that, among other things. For the sake of comparison, the
preceding year's figure was 493,000. That's a considerable jump.
There are also the visitors to our touring exhibits, the ones
we send across the country. That adds almost another 500,000
visitors to the 772,000 I mentioned just now.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Was it mainly the Renoir exhibit that
attracted so many visitors?
Mr. Yves Dagenais: No, the 500,000 I referred to were visitors
to our touring exhibits—the Renoir exhibit didn't really have
anything to do with that.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: About 350,000 people came just to see the
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Nonetheless, attendance was up.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: Enormously.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: How do you think the federal
government could help you continue to raise attendance? How can it
help you increase access to your collections?
Mr. Pierre Théberge: I don't want to be too specific when I
talk about touring shows. Certainly the federal government should
play a larger role in the programs of the Department of Canadian
Heritage. There have been some very major cuts, which have meant
that Canada's other museums and galleries—Mr. Terry spoke of this
as well—are no longer able to host our exhibitions because they no
longer have the means.
If there were an increase, even a very modest one, in the
funding allocated to hosting touring shows across the country, that
would help all museums and galleries, including the National. It
would mean that our clients would be more likely to receive what we
have to offer. We're not requesting an increase for our own
programs, but the money that goes to travelling exhibitions should
be increased. I'm speaking for my colleagues as well. I think the
same question is being raised everywhere. Mr. Terry spoke of it.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I have another small question. I
would like to know how you determine your choice of collections.
What do you base yourself on? Do you do studies?
Mr. Pierre Théberge: We start from what we have, mainly our
collections of Canadian and European art. We also have an Innuit
art collection and a small collection of Asian art. We look at
polls done by our counterparts in other galleries. We ask what they
would like to see and what shows they would like to prepare.
There's constant dialogue. There's no official forum. The gallery
directors get together, like the conservators. Our staff travels a
lot in Canada and a consensus is built up. We try to figure out
what people would like to see over the next few years.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: You mentioned federal government
subsidies. Of your revenues, what proportion comes from federal
subsidies and what proportion from donations?
Mr. Pierre Théberge: Mr. Dagenais can tell you that.
Mr. Yves Dagenais: Once again, one has to pick a specific
year. For the fiscal year that has just ended, the ratio is about
70:30; that is, in terms of gross revenue we raised almost 30 per
cent of our total resource needs, which is quite high.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you,
I'll direct my first question to Ms. Clarkson. It
bothers me when I hear about members discussing our
heritage like it's a product, like it's something for
entrepreneurs or the private sector to capitalize on. I
disagree with that. I think there are ways of
involving the private sector and entrepreneurs in assisting
and helping develop, but it's not necessarily something
for them to simply take advantage of and exploit for
You give us some fairly scary scenarios, and I agree
with them. I think it all boils down to, in my
opinion, how a government prioritizes its history, or
its culture, or what it is. I wonder if you
could provide some suggestions on how we might protect
ourselves against these inevitable scenarios. I'll maybe just
give two more questions and then they can all get
addressed, one after the other.
My other question is to Pierre Théberge. You talked
about the importance of travelling exhibits, and I
agree with you completely. I wonder if it's part of
your terms, as you're discussing these travelling
exhibits, and perhaps more so some of the smaller ones,
that there is a rural commitment. And by that I mean
when you travel to Vancouver or when you travel to
Halifax, are you hitting smaller rural areas as well,
whereby in fact there's accessibility for areas like my
riding in central Ontario, where there's no city and
the accessibility to some cultural experiences is
somewhat less than that of somebody in Toronto,
Ottawa, Vancouver, or Calgary?
My last question would be to Ms. DiCosimo. You
touched on lack of funding and how the government might
better support or encourage alternative sources of
funding, whether it be through taxation, tax breaks,
or partnering and that kind of thing. Do you have any
specific recommendations on how the government might do
Maybe Ms. Clarkson would start.
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: Yes, Mr. Bonwick, I
do have a very specific recommendation on what I think we could
do as a government for the possibility of this sudden
idea that our patrimoine would be bought by somebody,
the images, or the right to use the images.
I'll give you a specific example of something I
know really well, which is the CBC television archive,
and I'm only going to speak about the English network
from 1951 on. Many people say to us, why don't you
simply use all that archive and do that as repeat
broadcasting, or whatever?
One of the reasons we can't is that there are
rights involved. When you first made that program, for
instance, say in 1962, you made the National Ballet's
production of Swan Lake using the National Ballet
orchestra, filmed it in the O'Keefe Centre, as it then
was, with Veronica Tennant and Rudolf Nureyev.
You then at that point, because of the nature of
the contracts with the unions, both with the house
IATSE and with the AFM musicians' union, and
with the grand rights owners of the production, of the
direction, etc., would have negotiated a contract that
would allow you for English-language television play,
and possibly for export to the world, five or six
In other words, your costs at this point were that.
So even if you want to replay it now, even 30 years
later, you have to go back and renegotiate all those
costs with all those people. That has always stopped
the CBC dead in its tracks at the thought of doing
it. They did it recently for Sleeping Beauty,
but all the time you hear that we can't do it for all these
old series because of the money.
I think you could set up something called, or along
the lines of, a protection of heritage fund, which
would, on a case-by-case or sector-by-sector basis,
say we want to protect this area. We want to
protect, for example, all our National Film Board films. We
want to buy all the world rights for them forever, in
perpetuity, for showing everywhere, on every medium of
I don't think that is necessarily going to run into
billions. Certainly if you did it on an appropriations
basis or a year-by-year basis it wouldn't need to be,
because you could apply for it. The fact that it was
there would mean that it wouldn't be vulnerable any more
to being bought up by the Ted Turners or the
I think if you said we would have a fund where we could
apply and protect these things, it would be very
worth while. That's something that very concretely
could be done, because certainly the CBC in its
mode—which I gather is now over, from a recent e-mail
I have received—of cost-cutting would never
consider putting money into old rights for old programs
or their archives.
In fact, the archives of a broadcasting network like
our own, which for many years was the only broadcasting
network, or things like our three million objects at
the Museum of Civilization or all those paintings we
have at the National Gallery, all of this is something
that is incalculable almost in value to us as a people.
Therefore, if we do it on a staged-out basis, with a
protection heritage fund to protect those images and
protect them and keep them for us so that they don't go
into somebody else's bank, I think we could make that
work. And I don't think it would be that expensive, Mr.
Dr. George MacDonald: Could I perhaps respond to
that, Mr. Bonwick?
The Chairman: Briefly.
Dr. George MacDonald: Getting the shows to smaller
communities I know is a concern of all my colleagues
and myself. What we try to do is to have large,
medium, and smaller-scale exhibits that will fit into their
But it is a growing problem with the fact that a
number of years ago we had a fleet service of the
national museums that helped to subsidy the travel of
the collections across the country. That's gone now.
It's full freight, so to speak, for those small
museums. For the revenue generation to offset the
losses of the 36%, which we have all had, we now charge
user fees, and many of those small museums simply
cannot afford any user fee. I think there has
been a discrimination against the smaller institutions
by cutting off a number of these things.
Indemnification, which we have already mentioned, was
another one. That is being restored, it would appear
now, but it takes at least a three- or four-prong
approach so that government can assist to ensure that
those exhibitions get to the smaller centres and also
that we decentralize.
For example, we have had more than 500 objects from
our indigenous peoples first art collection in a
Thunder Bay museum for the past 20 years now, and we're
just about to turn that over and replace it with new
materials. So the decentralization of the collections
does have some history, but it certainly could be
accelerated, and we'd be a willing partner.
Just a last point on first nations. There is a great
pressure now for them to have some of the collections
back, aboriginal artifacts and so on, and certainly my
museum is very involved right now with the
determination of what collections can be redeposited in
other parts of the country. Most of those are very
small communities we are dealing with.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The Chairman: Would you like to add anything?
Mr. Pierre Théberge: I think Mr. Dagenais covered the
question. If the Committee would like to have a list of the
travelling exhibitions that we have put on over the last five
years, in every venue, we can provide it. There is also the
Canadian Museum of Photography, which puts on lots of shows in
smaller centres. A portion of our collections can also be
Maybe I could provide you with the information.
The Chairman: If you can send all that to the Clerk, it will
be distributed to the Committee members. Thank you.
Ms. Joanne DiCosimo: I'll start with a comment on
exhibitions as well, because it will lead me into the
funding question you asked.
I know that you met with a number of our colleagues
from across the country, so you know that and have
heard us speak about the importance of the museums
assistance program nationally.
In that context, I'd like to make the point that
our museums here are receivers of exhibitions as much
as we are developers of them. The treasures of the
country exist in museums across the country. They are
not all here. An equally important part of a healthy
program for national institutions is the support
available to the museum community nation-wide so that
we can share that important heritage.
On that note, as you look at funding, my chairman had
a very interesting perspective. When we watched Team
Canada embark for South America, we wondered how much
of heritage and cultural industry interests were being
We wondered aloud about
the opportunities that might exist for federal support
and assistance as our society shrinks and as global
interaction becomes more and more important for all of
us, yet impossible for each of us to do individually,
given our own resources. I am aware that some of my
colleagues from the science centre community
participated. Given my comments about science culture,
I find that very appropriate.
I have a quick list of other ways of supporting,
such as through assistance in the establishment of
endowments for different purposes in our institution.
Those represent one-time investments that institutions
then have the freedom to take and use as needed and as
appropriate, but it breaks the dependency from
government over the longer term.
I know tax relief items were mentioned to you by them
and the broader museum community consideration with
respect to museum memberships as potentially claimable.
Volunteer work, donations to our institutions—the
list is much longer, but I hope that addresses your
question, Mr. Bonwick.
The Chairman: Ms. Clarkson, you wanted
to intervene briefly.
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: I just want to intervene
here on the remark about the idea of science, nature, or
cultural people going on Team Canada. Recently the
Governor General of Canada made a state visit to India
and Pakistan, and that's where I met Mr. Obhrai. We
were part of his group that went. I was there as part of a
three-person cultural unit within that group. It was
the first time that had been done on a Governor
I would say it was very successful, because while he
was there doing the head of state kinds of things, we
had our parliamentary group, of which Mr. Obhrai was a
part. We had the cultural group and did our separate
things, while benefiting from the general publicity
Canada got from doing all of this. We got very good
publicity. We were at universities and different
cultural groups speaking about our culture. It was a
very well chosen group and it was very worth while.
Everybody who was on it thought it was a worthwhile
thing and should be continued with Team Canada.
I think they should be encouraged, because Canada is
not just one thing. We are a very complex country, and
it's very interesting to have these kind of layered
messages given to the world.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Clarkson.
Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Saada, and Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I guess
one of the challenges for the committee is to imagine
where it will be in the months of November and December
as it attempts to pull out from all of the various
panels and sectors we've heard something that is
coherent. The challenge every time we meet with
another cultural ecosystem, if you like, is to try to
pull back and ask, all right, what are we hearing?
How radical are the changes this sector seems to be
asking for relative to other sectors, such as film
distribution, where the changes are quite radical?
Let me make a couple of observations and ask one
question. There's a general theme in the first place
of steady as she goes, particularly with regard to
funding. Obviously they'd like more, but keep those
dollars coming. There's a certain element of tweaking,
which is suggested about changing tax regimes, as we've
already begun to do. But I don't hear a call for
anything radical other than “more”, which by the way is
not a unique theme to this group.
The second theme that has emerged from this group, but
also from the performing arts groups, is restoration of
the policy of touring, whether that applies to the
performing arts groups across the country, arts,
authors, or travelling exhibitions. I think I take
up Mr. Obhrai's point about getting Ottawa out in a
physical sense, not simply in a virtual sense.
There is an emerging theme our group will want to
consider about the restoration of money for travelling
exhibitions, with a sub-theme of indemnification being
a very concrete way of helping both national
exhibitions and international shows. That may be the
single biggest thing we can say as a committee, because
it's a cross-cutting issue, but it's not a new one
because we used to do it. Remember the various offices
of the Canada Council that promoted that.
The third theme, which I think we've really heard for
the first time today from Ms. Clarkson, is to do with
the protection of our heritage from the new forces of
technology and globalization. There are really two
sub-themes that were identified. One was the sort of
Bilbao theme, and that seems to be a very
special case. I will ask the panel members whether
they foresee that kind of specific operation of
the Guggenheim happening anywhere in Canada. Are any signs
of that appearing anywhere on the horizon?
The other theme that was alluded to was the Microsoft
theme, and it was illustrated by the recent death of Mr.
Bettmann, the creator of the Bettmann Archives, who
sold his entire photographic collection to a sub-unit
I guess the question to the other panelists is really
about the third theme, because I think we've heard the
first two quite well. Do you see any threat of that
kind of a Guggenheim Bilbao operation emerging
anywhere in Canada? Perhaps more specifically on the
preservation of our heritage, Mr. Terry referred to the
image banks he has, for example. What do the others
feel about that as a real threat, and do they think the
solution put forward by Ms. Clarkson, a sort of
protection of heritage fund, is the way to go?
I'm really throwing it over to Monsieur Théberge
and Mr. Terry to respond.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: If you're talking about the
Guggenheim threat, I would maybe answer with a sense of
humour. What if the National Gallery opened a branch
in Alberta or B.C.? The Spaniards spent $100 million
U.S. I think it is fantastic to spend that on a
museum. Things will evolve. But I think you can look
at the Guggenheim in another way: that is, the will of
a country to have a great institution and to really put
itself on the map, hire the greatest architect and have
a fantastic collection. Outside of the imperial aspect
of it, I think in itself it's a great moment in our
time. If in Canada the National Gallery or the Museum
of Civilization opened a great building somewhere else,
the Ottawa question might be addressed. So it's a
little bit of a joke as a way to answer you.
There is, as Madam Clarkson said, a threat in terms of
the technological grabbing of rights and things like
that, and what she's suggesting is very sensible, this
protection of patrimoine. A certain form of funding to
protect is something we should really look at.
Outside of that, you mentioned the need for more
circulation and sharing of the resources across the
country. This is unanimous. Everybody in the arts
field will tell you. There was a cultural summit in
Banff about a month and a half ago, and everybody
agreed, from the performing arts, the theatre, the
opera and the visual arts, this is very necessary.
Sharing is a very big issue.
The Chairman: Mr. Ling.
Mr. Frank Ling: If I may just add to this theme, I
recall two years ago when we made the presentation to
this board I mentioned the word “crisis”, which is made
out of danger or threat, but the other word that
is actually part of this word “crisis”, which happens to
be in Chinese, is “opportunity”. So I would like to
look upon this so-called threat as just one part of the
whole approach, which is our approach of not
colonization or imperialism, but partnership, which
falls within the values of Canadians.
In other words, instead of a fund that is focusing on
protectionism only, I would like to see a broader
approach to promote ourselves as partners of the
international marketplace. Thank you.
The Chairman: Dr. MacDonald.
Dr. George MacDonald: I'd just like to say I don't
think we'll see quite the formula of Bilbao here,
because that represents the colonization of Europe, as
an uncolonized area, by the U.S. from the point of view
of high culture. However, we're already colonized.
They're not going to make quite that approach here of
opening up and sharing their collection on an ongoing
basis. But we see it in the packaging already.
The productions and the exhibits that are
offered to us are often bundled, just as on the
In fact, I think both Adrienne and I keep going back to
the media because the colonization that we have seen
in the media is now spreading into museums. Museums
are at one end of the spectrum of media. We send
messages to our public, and the bundling we have
seen with television programs, with movies, and
blocking in screens is happening now in the museums.
If you look at the big exhibits that are on, even
Picasso comes from the Museum of Modern Art.
Mr. Pierre Théberge:
Dr. George MacDonald: But it's the
American bundling of the shows—not the content in that
case—the fact that they can often bundle shows that
are much cheaper than the shows to produce in Canada.
Most of the exhibits now, if they are going to compete
on the high end, are going to be a $5 million
production, and there are not many Canadian museums or galleries
that can put that kind of money together. So the process
But it's also virtual, and now that the web service
providers and search engines are being developed to be
very glitzy and so on by commercial groups, they are
also beginning to take in these assets, the electronic
assets, and put their own message and spin on
those. They are very professional in packaging
the services. Even on the web, they are making their
sites very exciting. They are offering them for free,
for tourists and others to come, and then they link to
your site as an institution, like one of the national
But it's not long—and there's
some evidence already, and this was very
nicely presented last week by the director of the Art
Gallery of Ontario. Museums and galleries and
others have been very vertical and isolated in their
organization in the past, but in order to face this
current...and it is a threat, in a sense, and maybe
also, as Mr. Ling says, an opportunity. The opportunity is for
the museums and galleries to horizontally network with
each other so that they can interchange and share their
collections more effectively. I think that's where
the federal government can, through the various devices
that have been laid out here, become even more effective
in ensuring that the whole Canadian cultural heritage
can be shared across Canada, both virtually and in terms
of real exhibits and collections.
The Chairman: Mr. Saada and then Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I would like
to start by thinking Ms. Clarkson, who said how sorry she was that
she wouldn't have any further opportunities of meeting with us. Of
all the disagreeable things she mentioned—the increasing American
presence, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment—she said the
worst was not seeing us again. I find that very gratifying and I
want to thank you.
One question that has not been discussed is what is happening
in the schools. Mr. Terry spoke of the Rescol network and of
partnerships with Industry Canada, but the question of using
schools as springboards for the visibility of our museum products
has not been raised. Let me explain to you very briefly how things
happen in schools. In a classroom, if you're lucky, you have one
computer. When you're very very lucky, in an especially favoured
area, you have two, perhaps three, but that's all.
As a result, the fact of having access to your museums via the
Internet is a good thing, but extremely limited in scope. You said
how concerned you are about knowledge of history or lack of
knowledge of history. This also applies to science. It seems there
is a connection that is not being made. In other words, it seems to
me that there is a kind of passive use of access to your products,
because all the support activities are missing, games for example,
workbooks, all the pedagogical material, all the programming that
could be constructed that would mobilize not just two or three
children at a time around one computer but also much broader
activity. I think that's the pedagogical aim you are striving for.
Have approaches been made to the various provincial ministries
of education, to school boards, schools or universities, to develop
the support products that would give an impetus to what you have
available in your facilities for the general public?
I'm not thinking only of the public in big cities. This would
help you to resolve some of the problem of accessibility in remoter
regions. My question is open to anyone who would like to respond.
The Chairman: Mr. Théberge.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: The country's local museums already have
educational programs. There are educational services that work with
school boards, with the whole local population, with local
institutions. Obviously, national institutions can help, but the
initiatives have often come from local museums developing their
Mr. Jacques Saada: You're talking about ad hoc activities that
happen because a local museum decides to connect with a school
board, not about something systematic?
Mr. Pierre Théberge: There's no national system.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Very good.
The Chairman: Mr. Terry.
Mr. Christopher Terry: In our case, we have
tried not to replicate curriculum but to build
on the experience we have of developing programs
for young people in the museums themselves,
to provide to teachers material that would help them
demonstrate fundamental principles they are
in fact dealing with in the material they provide
themselves to children through the curricula.
So we see ourselves as being an adjunct, in that sense,
not embedded in the curriculum development process.
That's not our function.
We have had some success using our Internet
connections to move out, to places beyond our
museums, the kinds of things people can come
and enjoy in the museums themselves.
Dr. George MacDonald: I have a very quick
comment that builds, I think, on what Chris has said.
Our discussion with the various educational authorities
across the country has pointed out that what
they're looking for is primary material, but
they're looking for it in digitized, accessible methods.
What they want to do is have the teacher work
with the students in building a history or building an
educational presentation without having it all
pre-packaged by the staff of the museum or by others.
What they want is the raw material and the access to
it, particularly the visual material.
This is what we hear the educators coming and
saying: you have the relevant material on national
treasures and on the collections and we want access
to the raw material. In our museum, and I think in most of
the other nationals, we have gone a long way toward
digitizing our collections. We're prepared.
What is more of a problem across the country
is that the medium and smaller museums have not yet
been able to bring their collections into the
mega database that is building up and that
the educators are using.
Recently from the province of Ontario the head of
electronic education visited us and said that
120,000 teachers are on-line in the province of
Ontario, and 30,000 of them are very regular users of
the Internet. They're drawing material. If you take
that across the country, you're looking at many
tens of thousands of teachers that are already
coming regularly to the databases of the
national library archives and so on.
So I think the process of digitization—and it's
being addressed perhaps slowly—eventually means
the federal institutions will have all of their assets
digitized. The problem more is perhaps with the
rest of the country's museums and archives
not yet being part of the system to build
that “super-database” of Canadian heritage and art.
The Chairman: Mr. Saada, I'll ask you to keep it short,
because we don't have much time left.
Mr. Jacques Saada: In that case I'll let other people ask
The Chairman: I'll try to give you the floor again later on if
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a few comments, if I may. First, I'm
quite pleased, in listening here, to get the sense
that there's a relatively good situation in our
institutions. There have been some changes. For
instance, at the Museum of Nature there's been the
arrival of the new chairman, new president, new CEO.
One gets the sense that things are functioning smoothly.
One also has a sense that the stresses that might have been
evident lately between the Museum of Civilization and
the Canadian War Museum will be smoothed out and things will
move quite well.
Things are going well at the National Gallery.
There's a sense that despite having survived a few
years of austerity, we're coming out of this in
generally good shape. I want to thank and congratulate
the people who are responsible for our institutions
for making that happen.
I have a couple of comments other than that.
I understand the desire, the impetus, to move our
collections about the country, and I certainly do
support that, but I also believe it is very important
for Canadians to visit their capital. That is why
these institutions are here, and we should not forget
It cuts both ways, because if we are to help Canadians
develop a sense of self and a sense of nation, visiting
one's capital certainly is an important element in that
development. As a member of Parliament from this area,
privileged to have three of the institutions in the
riding, I can't forget the importance of that.
Madame Clarkson, I believe your concern is real, of
collections being bought. It's not just in the
cultural or heritage field. There are examples of
international corporations, not necessarily just
American, buying up biodiversity, right now, for
their genome, because there's incredible wealth there.
The gold rush of today is genome mining, so people are
staking claims, and for small amounts—millions, but
relatively small amounts—they're buying from third
world countries, in many instances, the genome of
entire biodiversity museums or collections that they
It's a phenomenon that I think is real, and it can
be very well applied to our culture and our heritage.
I think we ought to be careful of this.
One of the principles we may wish to address in our
proposed cultural policy is indeed to address that of
public ownership. I'm not necessarily just concerned
with Americans. I don't perhaps bind to the
imperialism argument as much as others, because I don't
think it's American corporations, necessarily. There
are many multinational corporations other than the
Americans as well. They're acquiring a citizenship of
So that is a concern, and I think we have to address
the matter of ownership. And if we can't necessarily
free up all of the money necessary to do as you would
suggest, there may be a legislative means as well to
protect it and prohibit certain ownership of certain
things, or at least the reproduction rights or les
droits de diffusion, and so forth. So I think we have
to address that in the policy.
I would like to revert to the question of healthier public
finances. It has been difficult, that's true. Everybody has had to
tighten their belts and cultural institutions as well have had to
do their share. I would stress, however, that this exercise has had
benefits. It has forced certain institutions to go in search of
other sources of revenue. Mr. Dagenais said, for example, that
self-generated revenues at the National Gallery have reached 30 per
cent. I venture to think that this is progress and not a decline.
A few years ago, it certainly would not been 30 per cent.
In the institutions that are represented here today, there is
an element of permanence that is not necessarily found in other
cultural elements. As a result, funding can also be of a permanent
nature. I'm thinking in particular of the idea of capital, of
endowments. With a 10-to-20 year plan, in a generation or two,
could we aim at total financial independence for institutions by
building up, over 25 years if necessary, sufficient capital to
insure total financial independence? Is this a goal that you think
we should be considering, and if so, would you be ready to put the
required energy into establishing a long-term plan that would make
it possible to establish this permanent financial independence?
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: But where would this funding come from?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It could come in part from governments.
If we say that a certain amount of money is needed so that the
Museum of Civilization can be genuinely financially independent,
and we divide that by 25 years, and every year during that period
we invest 1/25 of that amount, then at the end of the 25 years,
we've reached our goal.
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: Personally I think that's a very good
solution, if you could get it approved.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The money would have to come from
The Chairman: Could we have some brief comments, please?
We have five minutes left.
Mr. Pierre Théberge: It takes a huge amount of capital. In New
York City, the Metropolitan Museum has an endowment fund of
hundreds of millions of dollars and the Museum of Modern Art there
has $100 million or more, and still they both put on massive
fundraising campaigns every year. The Canadian reality is very
different. When our colleagues at the Montreal Museum or other
institutions set out to raise funds, their targets are in the
nature of 20 or 30 million dollars. Ideally I think the idea is
possible, but you would have to be very alert to the country's
economic reality. We're not in the same economic situation as the
Americans. In the United States, the major museums and galleries
are entirely private institutions. In Canada, I think privatizing
our museums and galleries would be a very very long process.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments? If not, I'm going
to ask a question.
I was thinking exactly the same thing as was my
colleague, Mr. Bélanger, when you were speaking, Mrs.
Clarkson. It's so hard to set up funds, especially
funds that are derived from taxation today from any
government. I don't know why the legislative route is
not much easier, more feasible, and faster.
In other words, we can't sell Banff to the Americans;
we can't sell Jasper to the Americans. The museal
heritage is there, and all we have to do is consecrate
in legislation that all our national collections, which
are after all federal institutions, are protected from
any sale or loan or leasing to foreign interests unless
the government agrees. It seems to me it's very
possible to do it without too much trouble. You have
raised a very important point that maybe our committee
could look at.
I wanted to mention one other item before we close.
May 18 is International Museum Day. This year
it's too late, but maybe next year, if you would be
interested, I was thinking it would be an ideal
opportunity for your institutions to be represented and
meet all members of Parliament, besides the committee
people. Our committee could sponsor something, a
reception, for next year that we would publicize in
advance, and you would be aware of it, to sensitize the
other members as to your realities.
I was thinking, if you would agree, we could start
working on it. The clerk could make a note to prepare
for it for next year.
Ms. Adrienne Clarkson: It sounds like a wonderful
idea, a really wonderful idea. We would welcome that
The Chairman: Because I think here you are
preaching to the converted in many ways. The members
who are here believe in what you do, and it would be
nice to sensitize our colleagues. It would be great.
I really appreciate your presence here. Thank you
very much for appearing before us.
If the members of the Committee can remain for five minutes,
we're going to settle two important matters of Committee business.
First of all, we need an allocation of new funding to
carry on the work of the committee until the end of the
We will need $23,000 to continue our work on Bills C-29 and C-38,
a Canadian cultural study and the subcommittee on
sports. It's just to subsidize the work of the
committee and all the costs. It amounts to $23,200 for
the period April 1 to June 30, 1998. I would like to
have a motion from a member to authorize us to obtain
Mr. Jacques Saada: I so move.
Mr. John Godfrey: What's the breakdown between the
work of the subcommittee and the work of the main
committee in that period?
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Good question, Mr. Godfrey.
The Chairman: It's $5,000 for the subcommittee and
$17,000 for us. Okay?
The Chairman: The next item is far more important for us.
Mr. Bélanger, give me a minute.
We have several amendments that are to be presented. I
believe the NDP advised me this morning that there will
be 23 amendments, and I think Mr. Muise has five or six.
Mr. Mark Muise: Five or six.
The Chairman: Ms. St-Hilaire, how many amendments do you have
for Bill C-29? Do you know?
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: No idea, I'm afraid. I'm sorry. I'd
have to check.
The Chairman: I gather it's around six?
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Eight, I think.
The Chairman: We have 40 amendments in all being moved by
Opposition MPs. As you know, we decided the other day that the
deadline would be Monday at 5:00 p.m., but at the same time I said
that because of the very limited time available,
we would just look at it when we knew how many
amendments you had.
I think instead of being very formal here, we have
tried to sort of accommodate everybody. I understand
you have a problem with so many amendments. I
understand you've already lodged with the powers that
be for translation and legalized wording. So you
certainly are not trying to impede the work at all, and
we appreciate that. Could we come to some sort of a
trade-off that we give some flexibility?
I think I asked your researcher
to tell us what sort of deadline you need, first of all,
because we have to know when these amendments are
going to be ready, and you have the biggest number. So
do you know that, first of all?
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Well,
in the bare minimum, I would look at least
The Chairman: You would be ready for Thursday or
after Thursday? That's important,
because if we can start Thursday, that's one thing.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: A lot of it is out of our
hands because of the legislative review and the
The Chairman: I appreciate that.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: But as to the bulk of our
work, we'd look at Thursday.
The Chairman: Yes.
The Clerk of the Committee: Excuse me.
I think we need to clarify
to distinguish between your amendments, and then the
second part, getting it translated, edited by the
legal editor, and drafted by the House of Commons legal
drafter. That's the key point, and that's what we're
trying to find out from you.
The Chairman: I'm going to address your
researcher, because he's the one who saw me, and I
suggested that he inquire. This is really what I want
to know, not your part of it. So that we know, have
you been given some sort of an idea as to when this
work will be completed?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: At this point, Mr. Dupuis has
not gotten back to us. He was our contact.
The Chairman: Okay. Could I make one suggestion?
Tomorrow we have a meeting that is provided for. I
think we'll just let it go by. It's impossible to have
it tomorrow. I think members deserve a break anyway,
so tomorrow is out.
What I would suggest is in the meanwhile you can let
the clerk know as soon as possible when Mr. Dupuis is
going to be finished with your work. If we can start
on Thursday, all the better. By then....
The clerk doesn't think we will be able to start
Thursday. If we cannot start Thursday and we miss two
meetings this week, I would suggest a trade-off to you:
that next week we find a day when we'll sit for as
many hours as we need to, because we'll have lost four
hours in the process.
It's really hard, and it applies to your parties as it
applies to us. It takes our whip a tremendous amount
of advance time to be able to have enough members in
case there are votes, and so forth. Some of them belong
to two committees, some of them to three. We have to
have some idea as to whether we can devote so many
hours. That's the trade-off I would suggest,
that if we leave it for this week, if we're not
finished by Thursday, we set a time for next week
where we say if we need four hours or five hours,
we'll just carry on, and if we have to work at night,
let's work at night. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with
you, because what we've been told from the research
department when we brought our documentation forth is
that they could not confirm when they would have that
prepared. So I wonder if we could maybe not plan
for Thursday, but possibly next week.
Let's do as you suggested and deal with it. It's
just a suggestion, however.
The Chairman: So would I have a commitment from
members that we do this? We'll find a day next
week—the clerk will negotiate with all the
parties—such that we would just work until
we sort of replace those hours, virtually.
Mr. Rick Laliberté: Yes. That's favourable. We
would also inform the clerk and you as soon as we
find out when we would be prepared from research.
The Chairman: If by some miracle the work of Mr.
his staff is completed by Wednesday night or something
like this and we can have a meeting on Thursday, then
let's do that, because when that's provided for, we'll
let you know in good time. We'll check too, but it
doesn't look too likely.
Mr. John Godfrey: Just on the technicalities, can
I assume that the clerk will be in direct communication
with the Department of Canadian Heritage as the
situation evolves, rather than doing it indirectly
through me or anybody else, so that we'll know when
they are going to be required to...?
The Chairman: Is everyone in agreement?
If everybody is agreed, then we'll proceed
accordingly. If there's any change, if you get any
information that we don't have, just let us know right
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No meeting Wednesday or Thursday.
The Chairman: Definitely not on Wednesday. Thursday will
depend on how things develop. If by some miracle everything is
ready, we'll let you know.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Amen!
The Chairman: Wednesday is out.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a miracle nonetheless.
The Chairman: A miracle.
Mr. Mark Muise: It's a miracle.
The Chairman: Very good.
The meeting is adjourned.