Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 11 - Evidence - December 3, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Library and Archives of Canada Act (National Portrait Gallery), met this day at 10:46 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Today, we will deal with Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Library and Archives of Canada Act (National Portrait Gallery). I am pleased to see it is a one-page bill. You cannot do much wrong with a one-page bill, can you?
I also welcome Senator Nolin, who is sitting in for Senator Keon today. Everyone else is a regular member. At the other side of the table is the sponsor of Bill S-201, Senator Grafstein, who is about to retire, after a long and distinguished career that goes back to January of 1984 when he was appointed by former Prime Minister Trudeau to the Senate. Of course, he comes from the same city as me, Toronto. He has always proudly worn the title of a senator from Metro Toronto. Welcome to Senator Grafstein, who will now talk about his bill.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was proud and privileged serve you when you were the distinguished mayor of Toronto. Not only did I serve you, I helped you get re-elected a number of times. Toronto misses you, sir. You have come to higher duties, but Toronto misses you. Where are you when we need you?
Having said that, I want to thank all honourable senators for listening to me today. I know that some senators sometimes feel that I am too passionate, sometimes too rude, sometimes too overwhelming. I do not mean to be that way, but I am concerned about some issues. When I get involved in an issue, forgive me for my passion. However, on this one, I have been passionate for some time.
I wish to start by talking about the building itself. You will notice in this bill that it is not just to establish the national portrait gallery — it was originally to establish the national portrait gallery in the National Capital Commission — rather, since day one in this idea, it has been site-specific to 100 Wellington Street, which is the building just to the left of us.
Senator Segal: This bill is not site-specific.
Senator Grafstein: Yes, it is. It says, ``100 Wellington Street.'' It is very specific. It calls for a national portrait gallery at a specific location. There is a rationale for that.
First, let me explain to you briefly the chronology of that building. It is an important part of Canadian history. That building was constructed in 1931-32. When it was first built, it was applauded internationally as an outstanding piece of architecture. It was built by the American government, and it housed the American embassy, opposite the Parliament buildings. Recognition of the first foreign mission to Canada took place there, in 1931-32. The reason for that is the United States recognized Canada's independence from Britain in its foreign policy that year. It was the first country to recognize our sovereignty, and, in that sense, it is an iconic and historic building. Across the street is Parliament Hill and the Parliament Buildings, and the most iconic building in Canada, by all accounts, are the Parliament Buildings. They are probably the most recognized buildings in Canada. While this building has not been recognized, it could easily be recognized as the second most important building at no cost to the taxpayers, and I will explain that in a moment.
In 1931-32, it was designed and occupied by the Americans, and then the Americans decided to construct a large building on Sussex Drive in 1995. In 1997, the Wellington Street building was acquired by the federal government through Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC. It was at that time that I first approached Mr. Chrétien to think about establishing a portrait gallery there because, at that time, there was no intention to deal with that building, other than, perhaps, to remove it and expand the space to be an open space across from the Parliament Buildings.
It has gone through many variations, but in 1997, it was acquired by PWGSC, and in 1998, I believe, I approached Mr. Chrétien, and asked my colleague Senator Joyal, who is the outstanding art expert acknowledged by everyone in Parliament, to join me. He probably has done more to grace the Parliament Buildings with donations of art than any other single senator. You can see a number of them; his donations adorn the entrance to the Senate, and he is considered to be one of Canada's outstanding art experts. Senator Joyal is a great collector and a great friend of the Senate and of mine. I decided to join with him because the project had to be not just from one part of the country but also from Quebec. Therefore, the two of us approached Mr. Chrétien. We convinced him that it would be an interesting project, and it took us, in terms of lobbying, from 1997-98 to 2001, until Mr. Chrétien announced that the national portrait gallery would be established. It took that amount of time because of the tremendous opposition to it within the government bureaucracy. Everyone was fighting for budgets; and slowly, piece by piece, Senator Joyal and I overcame those objections and convinced not only Mr. Chrétien but also his cabinet that this would be an appropriate thing to do. It was announced in 2001.
Immediately, a staff was established to commence a competition to renovate the building. It was to be a minor renovation to sustain the purity of the architecture. An international competition took place, and, in 2003, Mr. Jones, a British architect, won a worldwide competition, and the plans were done.
The money situation becomes a little muddy because, up until that time, the building was — and still is — empty, and money was spent. My estimate is only anecdotal as we do not have access to government records, but, based on what we have heard and understood, somewhere between $11 million and $15 million has already been spent on the building.
Subsequently, in 2004, Mr. Martin's government was in some restraint, and the project slowed down. Then in 2006, the Conservative government took over, and Mr. Harper cancelled the project.
That is not new to Canada. When some prime ministers start legacy projects, you would think that, as in the United States, they would be continued by the successors, but that has not been the case in Canada. I will not bore you with the number of projects started by one prime minister and cancelled by an opposing one. There is nothing new in that. It is called ``political egoism,'' and I am not being critical of it. It is just a fact of life. One prime minister, whether Liberal or Conservative, succeeds another and all of the sudden there must be change, and we move on.
The result was that the Harper government did cancel it, notwithstanding the money that was spent, and, in 2007, started a competition, which was flawed in my view because it was not an open competition. It was limited to a number of cities. The idea was that the project would be a public-private project because of the money problem. Meanwhile, money was still being spent on the project here and on the collection.
Around 2007, we introduced a resolution, as a counterweight to the government policy, to sustain the portrait gallery. Then, in 2008, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill S-233, which is the subject matter of this hearing. In 2008, I think, on very good political judgment, Minister Moore decided to scuttle the competitive process because it was flawed and was not working. Here we are today.
I will tell you how I came to develop this idea. I believe every senator in this room is a lover of art. However, I have spent a particular amount of my personal time visiting art museums, and one of my favourites is the National Portrait Gallery in London. It is a jewel of a gallery, no larger than the one next door at 100 Wellington Street, but it is one of the most iconic portrait galleries in the world.
There is not a country in the world that does not have a national portrait gallery in its capital. In Australia, the Australian National Portrait Gallery is in Canberra; in Britain, it is in London; in the United States, it is in Washington; in France, it is in Paris, and so forth. Every country has a national portrait gallery to celebrate its politicians, heroes or history.
Essentially, it is meant to be a visual history of Canada.
I want to talk about the Biblical revelation. You have a moment in life when things are revealed to you. Some people are God-like, and others are human beings, such as me, but we all have moments of revelation. My moment of revelation came on this particular project when I received an invitation to visit the national archives, which had been moved from Ottawa to Gatineau. Honourable senators who have visited the national archives will understand what I mean. I discovered an unbelievable fact: there were thousands and thousands of portraits and paintings that represent an incredible visual history of Canada. Not only are there pictures of Aboriginal chiefs, Aboriginal events, village life in Quebec, Western life, but there is also an unbelievable collection of the faces of history of Canada. It is a visual history of Canada. Coupled with that collection, which has rarely been seen — probably only a small part has been seen by the Canadian public — is an unbelievably deeper collection of photographs, including a collection of Yousuf Karsh's photographs, which have never been seen in totality.
I know that because I met Mr. Karsh. He did that famous portrait of Winston Churchill, which took place in the Speaker's room just off the House of Commons, when Mr. Karsh pulled out his cigar, and it became an iconic picture. For those of you interested in seeing this art, you can see it at the Château Laurier, where Mr. Karsh stayed. Last night I decided to stay in the Yousuf Karsh suite to inspire myself for this hearing. He dedicated all his portraits to the national archives, as have a number of painters. I am sure he did that on the understanding that it would be exhibited to the Canadian public, yet that collection has never been seen in totality. Pieces are now seen at the national library, which is now the new program, but, in my view, it does not do Mr. Karsh justice. It is almost sad when you see that exhibit mounted in that particular fashion.
Let us talk about the cost and some of the objections that I have heard from my colleagues on the other side. The cost of this project was originally scheduled to be $44 million, and it was to be completed by 2005. Already $11 million to $15 million has been spent, the plans are ready to go, the building is ready to go, and it has been vacant since 1997, which is 12 years now. Taxpayers maintain that iconic empty building. Time is running out, and no other building is available in Ottawa at this juncture that is as cost-effective and that could house this gallery.
Cost is not a problem. Let us take the latest number that I have heard from the ministry; it would not be $44 million or $50 million, but it would be $100 million. Let us take that as the figure. First, it would actually fit into the stimulus package because it would create instant jobs and tourism in Ottawa, no question about that. Taking the $100 million as being the figure, if that is what the ministry says that it will cost, this is the cost that deterred the government from going ahead with this. If you estimate, as I have, the number of people that would go through the gallery, somewhere between 875,000 and a million people visit the Parliament Buildings every year. This building is 200 steps from the Parliament Buildings. I have walked it.
With that said, let us assume for the moment that only 75 or 80 per cent attend this building; you would still be making, if you charged $10 a ticket, $8 million to $10 million a year, and that would not include any other sources of revenue that would be available to the portrait gallery if it did that. The cost, to my mind, cannot be an objection.
The second issue that I have heard is that it is in the wrong place; it is too small; it would cause traffic jams; and there is no place for buses to park. Frankly, I do not understand that argument. I decided yesterday, in anticipation of this hearing, to have my one staff member, Mary de Toro, look at this issue. Based on her investigation and her report to me this morning, I found out what happens with tour buses. It is true that they cannot be parked along Wellington Street, but they can be parked on the side of either of the parallel streets, Metcalfe or Bank, which they do. In addition, the City of Ottawa and Parliament officials agree tour buses can be parked all along the roadway from West Block over to East Block. We have that roadway there. From time to time, when we have had tens of thousands of people visit Parliament Hill, buses are allowed to line up along that internal roadway.
It is not fair to argue that parking spaces are not adequate. People visit Parliament Hill, and this allows them to walk across the street without causing additional traffic for this particular building.
Another argument is why Ottawa should have this. We need it in London, Ontario, my home town; we need it in Calgary; we need it in Toronto; we need it in Quebec City. Why should Ottawa be the only place where all this money is spent? Why not spread it across the country? My answer to that is simple: This is a jewel of a museum, a jewel of a gallery and a fantastically iconic building. It will be readily publicized to the entire world at no cost to the public by doing a simple thing, which I have already checked can be done. We ask the anchors at CBC, Global and CTV to do a shot every once in a while with their backs to the national portrait gallery site instead of with their backs to the Parliament Buildings. Within a year, I guarantee it will be the second most iconic building in Canada because Canadians will come to know it, see it and watch it happen, at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. It is almost an offer you cannot refuse.
With that said, there is another argument: How is it fair that only Ottawa, the national capital, should be able to use this treasure trove? There is a cost factor. When the government looked at the question of moving a portion of the treasure trove in Gatineau across the country, it turned out it would cost millions of dollars to do so. In fact, one of the programs estimated to be somewhere between $3.5 million and $5 million was cancelled. I do not quarrel with that one way or the other, but, essentially, that has been restored in some fashion under the new program. I am sure you will hear from the minister about that. I have not been able to wrap my mind around those numbers. However, that is a way of dealing with the national portrait gallery program that is now housed in the anteroom, if you will, or the lobby of Library and Archives Canada. I want you all to visit it, see the Karsh exhibit and tell me if you do not agree that it is a sad exhibition.
The central point is that it is not fair to the taxpayers in Quebec City or Toronto that they should pay for yet another building in Ottawa. The answer to that is very simple: Podcasting. I have looked into the cost of that as well. Others have suggested to me that the way to make this a national event, every time the national gallery would launch a new exhibit — which would be once a month, once every six weeks or as they do in Toronto and other galleries across the country — it could all be on podcast; it could be visual or it could be on a direct line by cable. It could not only be seen in Ottawa but also by anyone who would like to take a feed to receive it. I am sure the cable companies would cooperate and allow us to exhibit once a week, twice a week or three times a week an hour of the latest exhibition happening at the national gallery. That way, it would be a virtual and living memorial to Canada's history.
I will end with this, and thank you all for your patience. I brought this, an iconic portrait. It is a portrait that hangs in the national portrait gallery, and I want to read it to you. It is from the Imperial War Cabinet, 1918. It is a picture of Canada's first attempt to rest its independence from the British Empire. If you will recall, Sir Robert Borden decided that in 1917, instead of allowing the British military war cabinet to run Canadian affairs, they would establish an Imperial War Cabinet. Here is a portrait of the first war cabinet. You will see Sir Robert Borden, Winston Churchill and Lord George in the portrait.
You might be wondering where I got this. I got it from the National Portrait Gallery in London, England. I think it cost me a pound. When you come out of the gallery, if you wish to see or keep any portrait, you go to a machine, put in a pound or two and can get any portrait you want — and you can do it either plain or fancy. I framed this, and it hangs in my office as a reminder to me that this is the time when Canada first really attained its sovereign independence from the British Empire. It is a monumental portrait, and it hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London, England.
We have dozens of these similar portraits of our war efforts, our political contributions and our artistic contributions. I have spoke to dozens of artists in this country. I have a picture of a group of artists gathered in my office some time ago when we were trying to put together a lobby. I could never understand why the cultural community did not support this. When television producers want something, they are here in abundance. When big oil companies want something, they are here in abundance. When banks want something, they are here in abundance. They have huge lobbying.
However, visual artists of this country who work for a living cannot afford a lobby, so they came to my office. Two or three of them who work from project to project thought this was a great idea. They want to give their collections to the archives, but they want them to be seen. Therefore, why would they want their life's work to be given to Library and Archives Canada where it will never be seen? They wanted to help me with this, so dozens of visual artists have written to me and told me this is a great project. They say that they live in Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Quebec, for example, but they want their collection, their life's work, that they cannot sell to the national archives, ultimately, to be seen in the national portrait gallery.
One woman told me that she had never sold a painting. I asked her why she continues to paint. She said she continues to paint because she believes, similar to Van Gogh, that one day someone will see one of her pieces and she will be become immortal. As you will recall, Van Gogh never sold a painting during his lifetime. Today his paintings are worth millions of dollars.
This will be a visual history of Canada. I hope I have addressed all the issues. If there are others, I await your questions. Thank you for your patience.
The Chair: I think you have already answered my questions. You have given very extensive and compelling arguments.
You talked about podcasting and the means of having people in other parts of the country share the treasures in the national portrait gallery and others in the capital, such as the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian War Museum and the National Gallery of Canada.
I do not doubt your expertise when it comes to the use of media for the means of sharing this across the country. I remember well The Rolling Stones concert in Toronto, the biggest concert in the history of Canada — maybe the world.
Senator Grafstein: It was the largest ticketed band concert in world history.
The Chair: Do not underestimate any of Senator Grafstein's advice with respect to how to communicate things. That was a terrific event that he and Dennis Mills put together as part of the recovery from SARS.
You said that that would get around the question of cost. Do we not now have any of the exhibits from these other institutions that I mentioned going across the country? Could we not combine something from the national portrait gallery with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Canadian War Museum, et cetera?
Senator Grafstein: We could do that as well. If we look at what is happening in the Art Gallery of Ontario, AGO, or the Royal Ontario Museum, ROM, in Toronto, an exhibit comes from New York to Toronto and moves on. The Dead Sea scrolls were there; the Egyptian pharaohs and Van Gogh exhibits have gone through. Exhibits are mounted and travel across the country. I see no reason why an exhibit that is first introduced in Ottawa, if it has achieved some success, cannot be transferred across the country.
That is costly however, in this day and age, because of insurance, transportation, fragility and so on. The government had to cut back on that, and I do not know where that stands. You can ask the minister about that.
The modern age allows us to have high definition and almost 3D now. The newest movie is called Avatar; it is high definition and 3D as well. It is living. You must go and see it; it is unbelievable.
I have a very simple proposition: We ask cable companies and broadcasters to contribute things for the public good. I am positive that CPAC and others would put these on as a question of course for an hour and repeat them endlessly and they can be seen across the country. If they want to do it gavel to gavel, they could take a feed from the gallery. The gallery could be wired with simple cameras to do that. We have cameras here. It is simple to wire it and cost- effective.
I have one story out of the SARS concert. The whole purpose of the SARS concert was not to address it to Canada but to say to the world that Toronto was a safe and sound place to go to. We did not have a budget. That is why we got The Rolling Stones here because we thought their reputation would travel around the world, and it did.
During that period of time I also produced. While it was happening, I was producing in the back room for a budget of about $20,000, most of which we volunteered to pay. We put the part of that show that we could on the Internet. I had a bunch of kids helping to do it from the back room. We got 15 seconds of music every quarter hour. It started at noon, and by the end of the day, we had 68 million hits around the world.
The media is a powerful and cost-effective way to promote Canada and our history, not only to the world but to ourselves. The problem with Canada is that we do not know our own history. We do not know about the history on the Hill. Many of us come to Parliament, and we continually learn about our own history. For us not to look the visual history of Canada in the face, to my mind, is sad. It is there for us.
Yes, we can do it; yes, it is cost-effective; yes, we can deal with the money question; yes, we can deal with the parking question; and, yes, we can deal with the history question. It is an offer you cannot refuse.
The Chair: Before I go to colleagues questions, at the end, we should talk about further processing of this. We did invite the minister to come today. He was unable to come. That is understandable because this was a last-minute situation to accommodate Senator Grafstein before he retires. We should discuss where we go with this, but we will do that later.
Next is Senator Segal from Kingston, Ontario, although, at one time, he did live in Toronto.
Senator Nolin: He is from Montreal.
The Chair: He has lived there too.
Senator Segal: Just a roving refugee, Mr. Chair.
I should point out, with respect to our distinguished guest and witness' early comments, the chair of this committee is the only Liberal for whom I have ever cast a ballot — in my entire 59 years of life — for mayor.
Senator Grafstein: It is never too late.
Senator Segal: It is never too late. It was not only because of his sterling qualities and your co-chairmanship of his campaign, but also because it was time to defeat the opponent in everyone's public interest.
I want to go back to a Liberal success story, which was a joint success story involving former Premier Davis and others. The year was 1977. It was the year just after the election of the Parti Québécois. Prime Minister Trudeau asked a question in cabinet as to whether there were any special plans for Canada Day that year, in view of the new pressures in the marketplace. The Secretary of State of the day — who I shall not name — did not have special plans. The Prime Minister was not happy with that. He appointed a deputy minister by the name of Bernard Ostry to take on a special task and Hugh Faulkner, from Peterborough, an Alcan graduate with some Queen's University connections, was made the officiating minister for that purpose.
That produced the Discovery Train. The Discovery Train was the old U.S. bicentennial train, so it has that similar historic reference to U.S. presence. It was the train used in 1976 for their bicentennial. Premier Davis of Ontario purchased the train, the capital cost of the train, with Ontario money and gave it to the federal government for $1. This became a non-partisan activity. A series of governments and corporations then engaged the Royal Bank of Canada, John Labatt and others to produce the Discovery Train, which filled car after car with as much of Canadian history as one could and took it right across the country.
I remember when it pulled into the old train station in Kingston, what an exciting event that was. By the way, the largest crowds were in Quebec. I look at that example of people working together, managing costs, taking it — whether it would be our national portrait gallery or portions thereof — right across Canada. Then I ask myself if that is not worth considering against the very compelling proposition of a stunning national portrait gallery right across from Parliament Hill, assuming that in difficult times of financial constraint and recession, governments must make choices whatever their political affiliation. This is not just because Kingston was Canada's first capital and that we have never forgiven Queen Victoria for the change, although there is an element of that.
Senator Grafstein: We, in Toronto, feel the same way.
Senator Segal: I understand. You, too, would be justified.
Senator Nolin: What about us in Montreal?
Senator Segal: Montreal, that is right. Can you imagine if we lost the capital to Montreal because the legislators thought the restaurants and nightlife were better in Montreal?
However, my point is this: I think that just as there was a political museum proposed by Mr. Chrétien which Prime Minister Martin in his wisdom thought was unsustainable —
Senator Grafstein: It was not a political museum. It was never a political museum.
Senator Segal: No, I am not suggesting the two were the same. There was a proposal for the old conference centre to be a history museum about Canada's politics, proposed by Prime Minister Chrétien, and Prime Minister Martin said no for whatever reason. These changes take place. Our witness is very precise about how that does on occasion happen.
Do you not, at some level, worry about concentrating another asset in a museum when we are probably one of the most ``museumed'' cities in the country — which is appropriate for a national capital — when there are other parts of the country that have as much right of access? That is not just the access, if I may say so, via podcast or on the web, which is important and valid, but to actually be in the room to actually have the experience of seeing the portraits you make reference to hanging together in a room that reflects history.
While I am not opposed to the idea, I need to be convinced why the national capital needs that asset when many parts of country do not have any of the heritage-related assets that really bring our history alive. You can think of Pier 21, in Halifax, Nova Scotia and a whole bunch of wonderful things out there, but it is not enough. You can say many things about Ottawa with its galleries and museums, but the two words that do not come to mind are ``not enough,'' and I would ask you to reflect on that.
Senator Grafstein: I do remember well the Discovery Train. It was a fabulous idea; it worked sensationally well and helped unite the country in a strange, interesting and compelling way. People did line up, as they did in Toronto, Kingston, London, Ontario, right across the country to visit it. It was an extraordinary event of nation building and a wonderful exhibit as well. It is too bad that we did not continue it.
As a matter of fact, I stole that idea. I proposed to the Liberal Party that once a year, in the fall session, we should put Parliament on a train and take it across the country so that the far reaches of the country could watch us at work. My colleagues scoffed at me and said that they really did not want the public to know how the sausage factory was working.
Senator Segal: Are you making a motion to put the Liberal Party on a train and send them across the country? That is a whole other constructive idea.
Senator Grafstein: It was Parliament, including the Senate, which I thought was a great idea; but the idea came from that.
Let me respond to you more directly. First, with respect to visuals, it is important to understand what is happening in the visual world. If you look at the new techniques of the movie Avatar as an example, it is almost virtual reality. In the new Avatar situations, you can develop, if you want, a mate, male or female, create that mate and then build a house and go to school and build an environment on the web.
Senator Segal: Does this not violate sections of the Old Testament? I am sure it does.
Senator Grafstein: I am just trying to respond to your question. If you want to have a biblical debate, we will get into it. We will start with Genesis I; I am pretty good at that.
Having said that, a magic is happening in the media now, and you can see it frequently in the new techniques that they are developing. I was involved in the virtual Tour of the Universe at the foot of the CN Tower. It was a great idea, but, again, the country and the technology had not caught up to it. However, the new technology and the new visual technology are extraordinary. I do not have in mind for people just to see a flat screen and so on; the new visual reality is unbelievable, and this can be very cost-effectively captured by it.
However, there is nothing wrong with doing everything that I say and that you say. We do not get enough in this country. There is no reason why we cannot do both. If an exhibit is successful, put it on a train and take it across the country once a year. Perhaps that is how we should celebrate Canada Day.
My point is that no matter what you do, there are tens of thousands of portraits. I have seen about 1,000 of them; they are extraordinary, and no one will ever see them. They will never be seen on a train or whatever. To my mind, it is a case of the more the merrier.
We have to ask ourselves as senators and parliamentarians how to do this cost-effectively. I accept the financial restraints. When we did the Stones concert, we used very little federal government money, but it produced unbelievable money for the city of Toronto, and the same with other projects. I understand that.
I believe the more the merrier. The Discovery Train would be great. It is not inconsistent. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Frankly, we do not do enough about Canadian history here. I urge you to go to the natural history museum and the war museum. They are great museums, but very few people go to them.
There is a reason for the war museum wanting to add a Holocaust wing, which was opposed here and I hope will not be a forgotten issue because I intend to continue that on when I leave the Senate. However, the reason the museum did not add that is because people suggested that if we do it for the Holocaust, we should do it for the Ukrainians and for the French Canadians and so on. By the way, the reason the board at that time wanted to do that is because the Holocaust museum in Washington is seen by more than all the other museums put together.
The whole idea is about how we attract the young people who come to Parliament and love the Parliament Buildings to walk across the street to give them a visual history of Canada. How do we do that cost-effectively? My point to you is that we are not talking about large dollars here and the more ideas the merrier.
Senator Segal: As I recall, Minister Moore set the project aside because the various bids that came in from across the country were not sufficiently economic; I believe that was his view. Would you be comfortable, as a promoter of this proposition in this bill, with a strategy that involved corporate sponsorship, a sponsorship by not-for-profits, assuming that a clear gap exists between corporate sponsorship and the curatorial decisions about what does or does not get displayed so as to have the integrity of the place maintained? Would you be open to that or would you be opposed to that?
Senator Grafstein: I am open to it, but I will take it one step further. I raised the question of revenue streams here. The proposed national portrait gallery could develop a number of revenue streams. One is, of course, entrance fee; and, again, if they charge $10 per ticket, which is not exorbitant, and assuming they attract 800,000 to 1 million people annually, it would be $100 million over 10 years. You would amortize the cost of even the most extravagant numbers. That is not the problem. The real question is the operating costs in between.
Again, I look at U.K.'s National Portrait Gallery, and they have a separate stream of revenue based on portraits such as the one I showed you, where you punch something in and get extra things. They do a great deal of that. For instance, if we were to put Karsh on the web, I am sure people across the country would download and pay for that.
When I asked the head of Library and Archives Canada about putting this into our scheme, he said that archives has a problem. That is part and parcel of why the bureaucracy has been so laggard on this project, which they have been. I want to be fair. It is not just government, it is also bureaucracy here. The reason for that is the envelopes: Every government agency has an envelope, and they do not want their envelope to be touched in any way, shape or form; they want to protect their envelope. Senator Eaton knows all about this. She knows that people fight for their budgets and for their turf. One of the problems with the idea that I put to the head of Library and Archives Canada was, he said, that if they do that, then they do not get the money at archives, it goes into the general revenue fund. I asked him to tell us about that, and we will amend it to allow them that pool of money to be available for the portrait gallery.
We can take certain steps to sustain the financial viability of this. I am stingy with the taxpayers' dollars, as I know you are, senator. I do not believe that we should waste taxpayers' dollars. However, I think this project can go ahead cost-effectively; and I am open to assistance from the corporate sector, but I do not like the idea.
I have been involved in many projects in Toronto where Canadians give their money, and for $5 million, someone grabs the naming rights. You can go to an institution and all of a sudden see an automobile sitting in the front hall of a structure that cost the taxpayer $300 million, and some corporate interest is snagging that right. That offends me, and I am sure it offends Senator Eaton and others who have been deeply involved in the cultural life of this country as I have been. Senator Eggleton knows all about that as well. A big fight occurred about naming rights at the O'Keefe Centre, which bothers me to no end.
Having said that, I am open to this. It is a new world. However, I would hope it would be under really tight constraints. There is corporate spending in the United States and corporate spending now in the National Portrait Gallery in England, but it is tightly constrained. Under those constraints, I am open to that proposition.
Senator Eaton: Senator Grafstein, you have made an extremely compelling case. I, like you, am a big promoter of Canadian history.
Senator Grafstein: Yes, you are.
Senator Eaton: Having sat on the ROM board, the board of trustees, and the foundation now for almost 25 years — I just resigned last year — I have no allusions about the cost of a museum, particularly with the insurance and the salaries. The mounting of exhibitions is expensive; programming and maintenance is extraordinarily expensive. My other question concerns what Senator Segal raised, which you have addressed somewhat.
We live in a massive country — and this is one of the things I have against the CBC — and if you live in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and even Calgary, you have access to the national ballet and our great museums. However, if you live outside those centres, for example, if you live in Yellowknife, north of Edmonton, south of Winnipeg, or in La Gaspésie region of Quebec, you have little resource. You have talked about Avatar, huge developments in television, cable and the visual medium, and the Internet, but nothing compares to seeing that in front of you.
When I hear about Festival Karsh, which is starting to travel across the country in 2010; about Portraits on the Ice during Winterlude; about Portraits in the Street for Quebec City during their four hundredth anniversary, which will be a travelling exhibit; and about family portraits being put together with the museum in Nova Scotia about immigration identity, that is compelling to me. If you put those shows on across the country, it will draw Canadians. Everyone in both small and large centres will have time to see their history.
If we had unlimited money in the next budget, of course it would be wonderful to have a national portrait gallery that could send out these exhibitions. However, I do not think we will have the money in the budget for many years to come. If we have any money, we should be sending these exhibitions across the country. Until we are, once again, back — namely, that the deficit is in control, and we are out of this recession — I think that the optics for Canadians who are struggling right now would not be good. Building a national portrait gallery at this time, although, as you say, it could be part of the economic renewal package, would not look good. I would appreciate your comments on what I have said.
Senator Grafstein: Those are compelling arguments. Let me break it down into three parts. I agree with you, because I, too, have served on boards — not as many as you, but I know the struggle encountered every day in every artistic community, whether the opera, ballet or various museums, large or small, to sustain themselves.
It reminds me of a story of an old farmer. A city slicker came to his farm house and asked the farmer, ``How do I get to this small town?'' The farmer replied, ``This is not a good place to start. Try someplace else.'' My argument is that there must be a start someplace. A modest start would be to have the gallery here. Otherwise, there would not be a central heart or core or focus on these activities. You have to start somewhere, and I think that this is the most cost- effective way to do it.
You raise a larger argument, and you have just articulated my wife's argument. She has said this repeatedly, ``People are in need of hospitals and here you are going off and doing this stuff with art. Should that money not be better spent treating cancer or helping hospitals? Is this good optics when unemployment at this particular time is so high?'' My answer to her and to you is neither a complete answer nor a convincing one, but it is the best I can come up with.
In the midst of the worst depression that the United States ever saw, Franklin Roosevelt understood that he had to do more than just help people off the bread lines and put them to work. During the 1930s — and it happened in Canada as well — there was a flowering of community projects of art. There were colonies of artists. Some magnificent work was done in painting, acting and workshops. Roosevelt, in his wisdom, decided that at the heart of a recession or a depression, the best thing people could do is take some money to help them involve themselves in the culture of their country and to edify the culture of the country and push it. Many great American writers — to name a couple, Miller, Bellow, and others — took advantage of the grants that they received during that period of time to move into the field of writing, as did many artists. You can trace that history; many books have been written about it.
As Senator Joyal pointed out to me, this happened in Montreal. During the 1930s, a group of Jewish painters got together, got funding from the government and did an unbelievable collection of art representing Quebec, Montreal, and the life of Montreal. He published that book recently. Senator Nolin might have seen it. It is $50, but it is worth the money.
If we focus our attention on the misery and the malaise in the country over the recession, I do not think we are being fair to the Canadian spirit. The Canadian spirit is greater than this. I think Canadians will rise above this. I have debated this issue with other people as well, whenever we wanted to build an opera house in Toronto. I was told, ``It is not the right time.'' It is never ``the right time,'' but you have to do it.
The really cost-effective argument here is that if we do not do it, we are spending money in any event. We are spending money on an empty building and putting stuff in the archives that no one will see. That is a loss.
We must have a cost benefit here, but I agree with you, senator. It is a strong argument, but sometimes you have to show political leadership and wisdom. Ultimately, I believe that this will cause a renewal of interest in the visual arts, and that portion of our system is not properly dealt with. We deal with film makers and with public events, but we do not deal with the visual artists. They do not get a break. This would give them a break to believe that there is some hope for their work.
Senator Ogilvie: You have presented a compelling and thoughtful argument. We have heard from some of our colleagues who live in the great cities of this country and have been recognized for their involvement in the artistic area, preservation, promotion, and so on.
I am a simple country boy.
Senator Grafstein: Indeed, so am I.
Senator Ogilvie: I am from rural Nova Scotia. In terms of the history of this country, I would argue that we Nova Scotians are, perhaps, as genuinely interested as any part of this country. That is perhaps because our roots go back to that transitional period of history where the European influence began to invade the great continent and to lead, ultimately, to where we are today, combined with all those who have influenced it. Therefore, we have some sense of the reality of historical developments.
In my own case, that interest is genuine. I have had the opportunity to visit most of the great galleries in Europe. I find the national gallery in London, off Piccadilly Circus, to be particularly compelling. On any trip to Great Britain, I take the opportunity to go there. Three paintings, in particular, cause me to sit and contemplate for a while.
Senator Grafstein: Is that in the National Gallery or in the National Portrait Gallery?
Senator Ogilvie: One of my great failings in life has been that I just do things; I do not remember the names. I know where they are, so I go there.
Senator Grafstein: It is on Grosvenor Square; that is the big one. The portrait gallery is right around the corner.
Senator Ogilvie: It does not matter; I know how to find it. My point was that I enjoy it greatly, whichever it is; and it is well known.
There may be good reasons to consider alternatives to your proposals that I have not yet considered, but one argument that I do not accept against it is the idea of Ottawa versus Toronto versus some other city. Most provinces have a major gallery, either a formal provincial gallery or one that serves essentially the same purpose.
Part of this country that Canadians visit with a view to thinking a bit about their history is Ottawa, in my experience. They have that reason in common for coming here. In fact, one might argue that there are other reasons to come here. This is a very historical site, and it has the other museums that you have identified, which a number of people do come to see deliberately, and they then include the Parliament Buildings and others as part of their visit here.
Other issues have been talked about, travelling exhibits and so on. I find the arguments for those compelling as well. Having been from a rural part of the country, a bookmobile was a great way of developing literacy and literary awareness; these have had very profound impacts on the development. I am in favour of the distribution of our awareness of our artistic history or our history through art, and I do not think we should overlook that.
My question is very specific. With all of your experience here, I am sure you can answer this quickly. In the short time that I have been here, I have tried to determine the rules under which we operate and what we, in the Senate, are allowed to do and what we are not, and the one issue that keeps appearing is the idea that a money bill, or one that has significant money implications, cannot be introduced from the Senate. You have obviously thought of that, and I am sure that you can disabuse me immediately of why that is not an argument against your proposal.
Senator Grafstein: I am looking at Senator Nolin, who keeps me honest on constitutional and parliamentary questions. He has raised this issue several times against a number of my bills. The Speaker has ruled on this very question as to whether the Senate, which cannot originate money bills, has the power to introduce bills that might involve the use of public money. That is your question.
The answer to that is simple: This bill does not come into effect unless it is subject to the approval of the other house of Parliament, the Commons, and then the final approval is that it can only become law after Royal Assent. Therefore, this bill is conditional upon, first, approval in the Senate, and then subsequently approval in its same form in the other house, which is a money house, and ultimately it cannot come into force without the approval of the government. There have been numerous rulings. This bill, by the way, received an objection in one version and was dealt with by the Speaker in the Senate, who said it was permissive to proceed. Thus, there is no constitutional or parliamentary inhibition to this particular bill.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you for that because in the great pile of documents that we received, there were statements that were explicit that a money bill could not originate in the Senate. I hear from you that the question about this bill has been raised, you have received a ruling, and it can proceed for discussion.
Senator Grafstein: If it has not been done on this bill, it has been done on others, but the wording here is clear. The Senate is not a house of confidence. We cannot deal with money bills, but we can vote money bills up or down. Initiating them is up to the other place, the House of Commons, and for the government. There are two prophylactic provisions that allow money bills to only be approved with, first of all, house approval, and then ultimately government approval.
You raised another interesting issue, and I will deal with it briefly. The Beaverbrook Art Gallery is a magnificent gallery not far from your hometown. I do not know if you have visited that or not.
Senator Ogilvie: That is in another province.
Senator Grafstein: I know that. It is in New Brunswick. I did not mean to offend you. Nova Scotia is warm to my heart and to every senator because if it was not for Nova Scotia, we would not have a Senate. It was the Province of Nova Scotia that insisted that the lower chamber be balanced by a smaller chamber. We would not be sitting here but for Nova Scotia.
Senator Ogilvie: Truly a parliamentary democracy in the commonwealth.
Senator Grafstein: Exactly. We are thankful to the founding fathers from Nova Scotia, because we would not be here but for them.
Back to the point, and that is the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, which has come into some recent controversy. There is a direct connection between the Beaverbrook Art Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. The National Portrait Gallery in London is a pocket gallery, three floors, and you can do it comfortably in an hour or an hour and a half. It is a pocket jewel. In it, you will find one if not two magnificent portraits of Lord Beaverbrook, who, as you know, left the Maritimes, New Brunswick, and became one of the most powerful men in England. You will see portraits of him alone and with others that are absolutely magnificent. When you walk through that place, you see echoes of Canadian history. This particular portrait is gigantic in size. Whenever I go there, that is one my first stops. I take a look at Winston Churchill, Sir Robert Borden and my great hero, Lloyd George. Lloyd George was once asked to define the Liberal Party. He said the Liberal Party is a party of principle, but our first principle is expediency — my hero.
Senator Martin: Senator Grafstein, thank you for your presentation today. You spoke with great conviction and support for artists. I think you are right about all of us around this table being Canadians who appreciate art and want to support the art and history that is so wonderful and rich in Canada.
I am a teacher of 21 years. I have seen many changes in the educational tools available to teachers over that time. Most recently, before I came to the Senate, I had this great tool called the SMART Board, an interactive whiteboard, in my classroom. It is a giant computer on the wall that is interactive and touch-sensitive. You can click with your fingers, and students can upload their PowerPoint presentation from home and present it in the class. It is the most amazing tool. It allows students to experience things as close to reality as possible. Of course, it could never replace the actual experience. However, we have visited the Eiffel Tower, the Coliseum and the Parthenon.
Senator Grafstein: You took a virtual tour.
Senator Martin: Yes, and the virtual world is quite amazing. We would sometimes go to websites and take an interactive tour of that particular site before going on a particular field trip.
I am thinking of some of the ideas that were presented this morning. Does the portrait gallery have a good, interactive website that utilizes the IT technology available to us?
Senator Grafstein: To the best of my knowledge, no, but I think you should direct that question to the minister when he comes.
Senator Martin: Perhaps they are under budget constraints and whatnot. I am curious about this proposal, which I am sharing as a teacher who has been in the classroom because it was expensive to take my class to these places. However, I could bring the world into the classroom with this technology. With the national portrait gallery being so rich in its resources, it would be good to be able to take that into the classroom.
You mentioned the importance of reaching out to the students and the young people. Young people live in a very different world nowadays. My daughter is 14, and I do not understand how she and her friends communicate at times, but it is online. I wonder about utilizing the technology and how that could take it not only to classrooms and places across Canada but out into the world as perhaps a stepping stone to whatever may come.
What about the collection and what becomes part of that gallery? Artists are in every corner of Canada. Again, I am mindful of those who may not speak English as their first language or who may be in places without access to information. I am curious about this collection and who will be a part of it. Large numbers of artists could not come and lobby in Ottawa, and many Canadians would not be able to travel to Ottawa either.
I do support your bill in principle with what it would offer Canadians, but I think about the accessibility and perhaps what else we could do, especially the virtual idea.
Senator Grafstein: You have raised three issues. First, to have any exhibit, you need a staging area and a place to start. Senator Eaton will tell you this; she has been involved in some magnificent exhibitions.
Go over to the archives building. The works of art are all in line. You have to pull out the sheets; you will see them all, and they are magnificent, but they are all stored. It is a storage house, so there is no room over there to exhibit. This space has been carefully measured to do a series of exhibitions, taking it one at a time in themes.
You need a staging place to do virtual reality. It has to come from something. You need the Eiffel Tower to do a tour of the Eiffel Tower. This is a cheap and cost-effective way of moving portraits from across the river to exhibit them on a regular basis. They had a good start at that, and the vestigial remains of that now continue at Library and Archives Canada when the government cut back on that. You cannot punch a button on a screen unless it comes from somewhere, and you need a staging area to set it up.
Second, you raised the other question of artists and unknown numbers of people who cannot afford to be here. Again, I will share a personal experience. I am a small-town boy who came from the other side of the tracks and went to a small school. I was forced to go to a public school called Tecumseh Public School because I was close to the wrong side of the river. It is on the river, on the tracks and I had to go to that school away from Aberdeen Public School. I did not know what Tecumseh meant, but it was in South London, Ontario. On the wall was a huge portrait of Chief Tecumseh. I was mesmerized by this. Every day we would sing the national anthem. We would see this magnificent portrait of Tecumseh, and it haunted me. I did not know much about the Aboriginal community, but later on I was travelling from London to Toronto and came across a place called the Six Nations Confederacy. I asked what that meant since it was Brantford, Ontario.
Again, one of my heroines was Pauline Johnson, one of Canada's great poets, and that is how I first learned poetry and ultimately came here and passed the poet laureate bill. That was all because of Pauline Johnson.
These Aboriginal figures mesmerized me, but we knew nothing about them in high school. There was nothing in our history other than some pictures in a history book of the coureur de bois and the occasional Aboriginal person. I was mesmerized by Tecumseh and made a lifelong study of his history. He was a great chief. Tecumseh saved Canada 60 miles away from my hometown of London, Ontario. In the War of 1812 when the Americans invaded and came up the Thames River, there was a battle. Without the Aboriginal community and leadership of Tecumseh, Canada would not have survived; we would be an American colony. He stopped it cold. Buchanan, who became president, was involved, as was Pike. Without Tecumseh and the Aboriginal fighters, the British militia would not have been able to sustain it. Tecumseh disappeared. He died in that battle. No one found his remains. Perhaps part of the Aboriginal tradition was just that, but it stuck with me. When I went over to the archives, I asked if they had a portrait of Tecumseh, and they did not; but they did have an entire series of magnificent portraits of Aboriginal chiefs and peoples of this country that no one has seen.
When people say that we are too Eurocentric, I agree, but if you blot out your own history and do not let people see that history, it is form of auto-da-fé. Auto-da-fé is cultural suicide; you are killing yourself.
This is part of my interest, passion and love of Canadian history. You can not be a senator and understand this country unless you have a passion for Canadian history because if you understand Canadians history, you will understand what the Senate is all about. This is part and parcel of why we are here: to tell the unknown stories that people do not want to hear about. Part of the unknown stories is the contributions that Aboriginals have made and to see a visual history of it.
To have that stored away in some locker room, to my mind, bothers me when I think about it. Do not get me upset; I am trying to be nice and positive. Do not get me started.
At the end of the day, this is what we will see. This is where history will be shown. If we have a virtual reality museum, ultimately we will be able to punch a button, and I will be able to get Tecumseh here.
Senator Cordy: Please do not apologize for your passion. It is wonderful to be this passionate about the national portrait gallery. Your love of the arts has shown through in the nine and a half years that I have been on the Hill, so thank you very much for all the work you have done in that area and specifically related to this bill.
I am also from Nova Scotia, as is Senator Ogilvie, and we have an amazing history with Louisbourg, the Acadians, Joseph Howe, freedom of the press, and we are fortunate to have another passionate person in Nova Scotia, Ruth Goldbloom. She was instrumental in the building of Pier 21, which is a wonderful museum showing the history of the people who have come through and to Nova Scotia and subsequently made their homes through all of Canada.
Similar to Senator Martin, I cannot forget my history as a teacher, so that is the road I would like to go down, though I am much older than her. We did not have the technology. Kits arrived at our school from the Canadian Museum of Nature, so things have come a long way.
I am very interested in the distribution to schools because that is important. I do agree with you that we need a central location. Without the central location, items are stored away and people do not know what is available to them as Canadians. While nothing compares to seeing the real thing — such as bringing a class to Ottawa to visit the portrait gallery — the second best thing is to bring the gallery to students throughout the country by virtual reality, by kits, by teachers' guides. In my mind, that would whet the appetite of the young people in the schools so that they would, as you did, want to find out more about a particular thing, to find out more about their country. We all agree that we do not know enough about or appreciate our own history. We tend to read the history of the United States, our neighbour, because they do a wonderful job. When you go to Washington to see the monuments, you think we should be doing more in our own country.
Do you envision the portrait gallery as being school-friendly in terms of teachers' guides, so that they do not have to be here specifically but can take a virtual tour? Do you see those types of things to whet the appetites of young people around the country?
Senator Grafstein: You took the words out of my mouth. Again, we have to start at a place; we have to put the exhibits together. I can see regular kits going out on different themes. Take the Aboriginal community in this country, for example. There is not an Aboriginal community; there are dozens of Aboriginal communities in this country. We think of them as being one face or one group, and they are not. There are dozens of them. That is something that you learn in Ottawa at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which I served on for years. Senator Nolin and I were on a number of committees together, and both of us were amazed at the number of Aboriginal groups in this country that have different identities and languages and are proud of that. Canada does not know that. We have the stereotypical notion that Aboriginal people are one type.
Louisbourg is one example. I led the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, and amongst the first places we went to in Canada were Louisbourg and Charlottetown to teach the Americans that we were here in North America before they were. They did not know that. Over and over again, I am offended when I go to the United States. You all know that I spend more time in the United States than practically anyone else in Ottawa, advocating issues on behalf of Canada. Whenever I go to Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., I see the huge portrait that covers one wall. It is of the War of 1812, and it says that this is the war that the Americans won. Well, they did not win the war. Teddy Roosevelt wrote a book about the War of 1812. In it, he said that they won that war. It was nonsense. It was not correct. I was at all the battlefields. We won that war. Quite frankly, the Americans will not admit that we won the war because they have this portrait that thousands of people see and read and believe that they won that war.
It is important to have not only a factual history of the country but a visual demonstration of the country, and we have it. It is not as if we do not have it. We just want people to see it.
Teachers should be deeply involved in this. The Holocaust museum in Washington, which is excellent, sends out materials every week around the world. That Holocaust museum is not just a museum, it is a teaching tool. The national portrait gallery should be a teaching tool of our history. By the way, our history did not start in 1867. It started way before then. There are portraits at the gallery that demonstrate that. It is exciting stuff. It will make you all as passionate as I am.
The Chair: Thank you. I will now go to the where-from-here portion of the meeting. I would make two or three suggestions of whom we could have as a witness on this issue. Of course, we should have Minister Moore here from Canadian Heritage. I know of perhaps three national associations that might cover the national interest, but maybe people want to recommend some others; for example, the Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. I have stayed away from government entities and tried to stick with independent associations.
Does anyone else have ideas?
Senator Segal: I suggest the Historica-Dominion Institute. I defer to Senator Nolin whether Quebec has anything similar.
[Translation]
Is there a similar institution in Quebec dedicated to promoting history? If so we could invite its representatives.
[English]
Mr. Chair, while he may no longer be a member of the chamber, he will be a strong proponent. Near the ending of the hearings, we could ask Senator Grafstein back to reflect on some of the evidence that we have received. That would be a way to close that circle. His perspective will be of immense value to us.
The Chair: I think it would be appropriate to invite back Citizen Grafstein.
I should point out, though, that Senator Joyal will take over the sponsorship of this bill from Senator Grafstein, and he will be coming to our meetings on it now.
I would like to try to keep this down to one meeting, but no more than two meetings if we can help it, because of our other workload. I think we are looking at that in the New Year.
Senator Eaton: If we get someone from the Historica-Dominion Institute, could we get someone who specializes in mounting travelling exhibitions to tell us about conservation problems and costs, someone with technical expertise in moving exhibitions across the country? I would like to know whether it is easy to do or not.
The Chair: Do you mean someone from the Historica-Dominion Institute with that expertise, or someone in addition?
Senator Eaton: I suggest someone in addition who could appear so that we do not have days and days of testimony.
The Chair: It could be that the minister might have someone on his staff. That is one place we could look.
Senator Eaton: One of our larger museums would have people involved in exhibitions.
The Chair: We will try to find someone such as that. Is there anyone else? With the number of people being suggested, when we get more from Quebec, we are probably looking at several meetings. We should limit it to that. We will limit it to two meetings and work out something from there.
That completes our deliberations today. Senator Grafstein, I think everyone has said that your arguments have been compelling. It has been very edifying and a very enjoyable way to spend our meeting on a Thursday morning.
Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)