McMichael Canadian Art
Collection Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 112, Mrs Johns
/
Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur la Collection McMichael
d'art canadien, projet de loi 112, Mme
Johns
Mr Rudy
Bies
Ms Joy
Cohnstaedt
Canadian Society of
Painters in Watercolour
Ms Elizabeth Gilbert
Ms Lynn
Bevan
Mr John
McEwen
Mr Don
Lake
Compaq
Canada
Mr John Challinor
Mr David
Silcox
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale /
Toronto-Centre-Rosedale L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer, Research and Information
Services
Ms Marilyn Leitman, legislative counsel
The committee met at
1537 in committee room 1.
MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT,
2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA COLLECTION MCMICHAEL
D'ART CANADIEN
Consideration of Bill 112, An
Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act / Projet
de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Collection McMichael
d'art canadien.
RUDY BIES
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon, all, and welcome to the
third day of hearings on Bill 112, An Act to amend the McMichael
Canadian Art Collection Act. We'll call the committee to order
and we will move directly to our first presentation. That would
be from Mr Rudy Bies.
Good afternoon, sir, and
welcome to the committee. Please have a seat at the witness
table.
Mr Rudy
Bies: Can you hear me?
The Chair:
Absolutely.
Mr Bies: I'd
like to say good afternoon to the committee and I will begin with
my presentation. My presentation to you will start on page 2.
My name is Rudy Bies. My
wife, Gloria, would love to be here today but her work schedule
does not permit that, so I will do a presentation on behalf of
the two of us. This is a presentation from Gloria and Rudy
Bies.
To give you a little bit of
background about the two of us, neither one of us is an artist,
nor are we employed in the art field, either commercial or with a
public gallery. I am a practising professional engineer; my wife
is a practising professional pharmacist. We are that part of the
art world that is called the general public. Part of this general
public is made up of art patrons who are often referred to as
"the collectors." We could be called collectors but we don't like
the term "collector" because we find the word cold and
calculating.
We have specialized in
collecting Canadian art from the 1970s and 1980s, largely Inuit,
native and some contemporary non-native art. Among the artist
friends we have collected art from, Arthur Shilling was a great
Canadian artist and one of our closest friends. We have collected
Inuit and native art and we were delighted when the McMichael
gallery added Inuit and later native art to the collection.
As collector-patrons, we not
only support public galleries but also we have an opportunity to
mentor up-and-coming artists. We often think back to our own
start at enjoying art. The McMichael created for us an intimacy
and an interaction of art, artist, art lover and nature. We know
Bob and Signe McMichael and admire what they have done. Our
young, growing family loved to visit the collection. Today, our
three children, all in their 30s, are young adults and each one
continues to be interested in art, an interest that was born at
the McMichael gallery.
Just recently, for my
birthday, my youngest daughter bought me a copy of the first
edition of the McMichael collection catalogue, dated May 1967. I
was delighted to receive this gift from my daughter, and the
thoughtfulness that went behind this. I think all of us who have
visited the gallery and the collection during the early 1970s
have a catalogue signed by A.Y. Jackson. A visit to this gallery
was always a happening for our family.
The Group of Seven and their
contemporaries, as spelled out in the original McMichael
agreement and as currently spelled out in Bill 112, represents a
unique benchmark in Canadian art. This group of artists put
Canadian art on the international map. They also made many
Canadians, like ourselves, appreciate that Canadian artists are
good. The Group is a Canadian icon, and this special segment of
Canadian art deserves a special home of its own, as the
McMichaels established when they founded the original gallery.
The McMichael gallery deserves to remain unique, as the original
founders' vision saw it.
As citizens of Ontario, we
are privileged to be able to live in any of the diverse cities
and towns that suits our needs. We have lived in several of
Ontario's magnificent cities and enjoyed what each had to offer.
In the same way, we want to enjoy the many diverse art galleries
that Ontario has to offer. There are many galleries that can
provide a home for the newer, modern conceptual art. We feel that
public galleries should stress more Canadian content, outside of
the McMichael gallery. The intent of Bill 112 is to restore the
collection to its original mandate and honour a 35-year-old
commitment to the McMichaels by a previous government.
Virtually every public art collection in the world
established by people such as the McMichaels was created to
include only the great artists chosen by that family. The Frick
collection in New York is such an example. It became a model for
many other collections and galleries. There is also the Munch
Gallery in Oslo, Norway, and the Van Gogh Gallery in Amsterdam.
There are many more such galleries in America and Europe that are
dedicated to very specific artists and their works. There have
always been guidelines for the type of art to be acquired by
these galleries, and these guidelines have been honoured.
We feel that the McMichael
should be the unique home for the artists spelled out in Bill
112. There are many publicly funded galleries in Canada that can
show upcoming Canadian artists, Canadian art prior to and
post-Group of Seven. These galleries need to increase their
Canadian content so that more art patrons would get the message
that Canadian art is good. We are not comfortable when we read or
hear statements from Canadian art collectors such as, "I do not
buy Canadian art because it is a bad investment." The
McMichaels's chosen artists were a showcase to the world through
much of the last millennium. Let this continue into the new
millennium.
Let me conclude by reading
the first two paragraphs from Paul Duval's introduction to that
first catalogue of the McMichael conservation collection that I
brought with me: "The most interesting personal art collections
in the world have been born of a compelling enthusiasm for a
particular period or kind of art. Material for such collections
may be the work of one painter, one nation or one school of
artists. The enthusiasm that founded the McMichael conservation
collection was triggered by the art of a legendary Canadian, Tom
Thomson, and those Group of Seven painters who shared his
devotion to our Canadian landscape."
The intent of Bill 112 is to
restore the collection to its original mandate and to honour a
35-year-old commitment to the McMichaels by a previous
government. The McMichael gallery deserves to remain unique, as
the original founders' vision saw it. In summary, I would like to
say that Gloria and I are art collectors. We support Bill 112.
The McMichael gallery must remain unique, as the original
founders' vision saw it and it was originally agreed to. Other
Canadian public galleries can put a little more general emphasis
on Canadian art and thus provide a home for contemporary and
modern art. That, members of the committee, is my
presentation.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Bies. In fact you have taken exactly 10
minutes, so I applaud you on your preparation, you and your wife
in the preparing of the report. Thank you for taking the time to
come and make those views known to the committee. We appreciate
it.
JOY COHNSTAEDT
The Chair:
Our next presentation is from Ms Joy Cohnstaedt. Good afternoon.
Welcome to the committee.
Ms Joy
Cohnstaedt: Thank you very much. I know that the
document I have prepared has been circulated, but I'll take a
moment to read it into the record.
Thank you very much for the
opportunity to meet with you and to share some of my concerns
with you about Bill 112. I am speaking as an individual and as a
former deputy minister responsible for culture. I am a regular
user of the gallery. On my visits, guests from Toronto, other
parts of Canada and elsewhere often accompany me. I encourage my
York University art history students and others to visit the
McMichael because they can see First Peoples art from pre-contact
to the present, as well as other Canadian works of art. The most
recent show I saw was the Emily Carr exhibit.
I visit and encourage others
to visit the gallery because for me it is more than a celebration
and monument to the past. As an informed society, we need
interpretation and critical analysis of the collection and the
other exhibits of historical and contemporary Canadian art
presented by the McMichael gallery.
I read in Hansard that the
Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation said, "The
purpose of this bill is very clear. It is to restore the
McMichael collection to sound financial health and to honour the
intent of the gallery's original mandate." I have read the
arguments for and against changing the legislation, and find
those in support of the current mandate and in opposition to Bill
112 compelling.
I have also just now read the
presentation prepared by Vincent Tovell, and I would associate
myself with it.
However, I want to focus my
comments on the impact of Bill 112 and its assumption that
passage of the bill will restore the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection to "sound financial health."
I have seen no evidence in
support of the assumption that the measures to be taken, in
particular the narrowing of the collection, will have any
positive impact on the finances of the gallery. Indeed there
appears to be only the assumption that because other single-focus
galleries in the world are viable, this one will be too once the
collection is reduced. Where is the analysis to support this
assumption? Where is the evidence that exhibiting the Group of
Seven and their peers is of international, let alone of
sufficient national and regional interest, to sustain the
gallery?
The McMichael Canadian Art
Collection is located in splendid surroundings, but a visitor to
Toronto and to Canada can see fine examples of the Group of Seven
and their peers in other galleries, such as the Art Gallery of
Ontario and the National Gallery, without traveling outside the
urban area. Incidentally, most galleries with a single focus are
located in urban areas. Tourists and local residents need not
make the trip once, or more than once, unless the programming of
the gallery is interesting and changes on a regular basis. What
they cannot see is a gallery whose sole purpose is exhibiting not
only historical but also contemporary Canadian art.
1550
Once the gallery's mandate is
narrowed, where is the programming to be drawn from? It is not
the purpose of other galleries in Canada to provide exhibits to
meet the new mandate, and there are few-the Art Gallery of
Victoria, for example, with an interest in Emily Carr-to provide
occasional touring exhibitions that satisfy the new mandate.
Where is the plan for exciting new exhibitions to attract new
visitors and compel current visitors to return to the McMichael
Gallery? Where are the curators and art historians? Where is the
funding? Deaccessioning a portion of the collection provides
one-time-only funding; the gallery needs long-term, stable and
predictable funding. Where is the government's commitment to
this?
Finally, I do not believe
that the introduction of this legislation, and its goal to
restore the collection to sound financial health, is based on any
substantive research to demonstrate the measures proposed will
accomplish this end. Indeed I believe the passage of this
legislation offends the public interest, and I strongly recommend
that it be withdrawn until such time as the government can
demonstrate its passage will provide the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection with sound financial health. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you. That leaves us with about four minutes for
questioning. This time the rotation starts with the Liberals.
Ms Caroline Di Cocco
(Sarnia-Lambton): Thank you very much for your
presentation. It's no secret here that I, too, feel the bill
should be withdrawn. This bill, to me it's not so much that it's
dealing with restoration or financial stability, but it appears
to be changing the governance, the arm's-length relationship, the
governance model that boards of art galleries across this
province have had for a number of years. In your experience, if
you've taken a look at this advisory committee model they're
proposing, what's your interpretation of that advisory committee
model in governing the gallery?
Ms
Cohnstaedt: Regardless of whether or not the committee
is advisory, it appears to me that the decision-making regarding
the collection and the programming will rest with a few
individuals, some of whom will not be professionally trained.
They will have a strong avocational interest. I think the museum
and gallery community has moved well beyond this practice at this
time, and so, like you, I'm concerned about the relationship
between, first of all, the government and the management of the
McMichael and within the McMichael, the relationships that will
exist among those who are employed there. It's for this reason
that I believe that the presentation of the legislation offends
the public interest.
Ms Di Cocco:
I've received a draft of the audit statements for 1980. I don't
know if you have ever been privy to those.
Ms
Cohnstaedt: There's no reason why I would be.
Ms Di Cocco:
OK. In it, it speaks clearly to the unprofessional perspective of
dealing with, let's say, selling and attaining a price, if you
want to call it that, under the past governance of the
McMichaels. It was astounding to me because in here it suggests
that there were times with the corporation, under the McMichaels,
when there was some interference when it came to actually pricing
some of these works. There was no public tender in some instances
in selling off the works of art. As I said, I have the document,
and I will be sending it to the minister because I find it just
appalling.
When you are selling a piece
of art in a gallery-"deaccessioning" I think is the proper
term-what is the correct way to do it? The audit says that it
wasn't done correctly. Could you tell me what the-
Ms
Cohnstaedt: I'm not someone who acts as a dealer in art,
so I'd rather not. I think the issue at hand is that there are a
variety of individuals who have, in good faith, either given
money or given works of art in kind, and they too expect that
their wishes be respected. This collection is made up of much
more than the donation of a couple, who, by the way I think need
to be applauded for what they have initiated, but I believe they
have received more than their fair share of benefits from the
state for the contributions they have made.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Cohnstaedt. We appreciate your taking the time to
come before the committee this afternoon.
CANADIAN SOCIETY OF PAINTERS IN WATERCOLOUR
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Society of
Painters in Watercolour, Elizabeth Gilbert. Good afternoon.
Welcome to the committee.
Ms Elizabeth
Gilbert: My name is Elizabeth Gilbert and I am here
representing the Canadian Society of Painters in Watercolour. The
CSPWC is the national organization for professional watercolour
artists in Canada. The watercolour society was founded 75 years
ago by 12 artists, including A.J. Casson, Franklin Carmichael and
Fred Brigden. Now, with over 200 elected members from
Newfoundland to the Yukon, we are a very active and diverse
group. Within our members' work you would see every imaginable
style of art, from incredible realism through to the abstract.
What we all share is the passion for painting with
watercolours.
We are very concerned about
the proposed changes to the McMichael collection. The McMichael
Canadian collection is a treasure that continues to play a
premier role in Canadian art. In a country where we struggle to
define our identity and culture, the McMichael collection is
absolutely and beautifully Canadian. The Group of Seven and Tom
Thomson saw the Canadian landscape and interpreted it so
successfully that it is a foundation for our culture. What the
McMichaels have given to the people of Canada is awesome. What
they have contributed to the Canadian culture is an immense
gift.
But what we are losing with
this proposed bill is the very creativity that gave birth to the
work that we seek to protect. Thomson, MacDonald, Jackson, Lawren
Harris, Lismer, Casson,
Varley, Carmichael and Johnston all broke the mould. They
experimented, they saw in new ways and developed their own
styles. They were original and they were rejected. Artists, to be
successful, must learn from those who inspire them, but then must
find their own expression in the original. Originality is
inherent and essential in the creation of art.
The McMichael collection has
played a pivotal role in Canadian art. With the cessation of new
initiatives and showing the work of new generations, we are
amputating its role in the creative processes of Canadian art. To
restrict the collection to only the Group of Seven and to cease
showing the work of living Canadian artists, the McMichael
collection becomes only the McMichael museum-a museum where
history is safely stored, but no longer a place seeing and
expressing Canadian culture. The whole character of the McMichael
collection is at stake now, as much as if a tremendous tornado
ripped through Kleinburg.
The watercolour society feels
strongly that the McMichael Canadian collection must remain open
to new ways of seeing and expression, and that continued
exhibition of living artists is very much in keeping with the
philosophies that inspired the original Group of Seven and
Thomson. Canadian culture and identity is being put at risk
here.
We feel that political
interference does not belong in art. Creativity is what makes
humans so special and unique among the species. We know that it
is seldom logical to be an artist. Consider this: you can be
among the best in the country, train for many years and yet
struggle to make as much money as a mediocre, unmotivated office
worker. We are artists because we are compelled and creative.
1600
Politically motivated
interference in the art world can only have negative
consequences. The sell-off of modern works from the McMichael
collection will flood the art market. It will depress the prices
of new and existing works. The damage from this bill will
reverberate across Canada, more like a massive hurricane than a
localized tornado.
We ask you to reject Bill
112. We request that you work with the McMichaels, the gallery
and living Canadian artists to support the continued, vital and
dynamic role of the McMichael collection in the context of its
pre-eminent position in our very identity.
Now I'd like to speak as an
individual. I love the McMichael gallery, and I have since the
first time my high school class walked through those doors. It is
my favourite gallery in the world, and I am saying this having
been through the Louvre, the Uffizi, the Vatican and countless
others. I have not liked everything hung at the McMichael, and I
defy anybody to say honestly that they have liked everything. I
share with the McMichael family their frustrations with some
manifestations of modern creativity. The solution, I feel, is not
in this bill. Bill 112 cuts off the creativity and chains the
collection to the past.
The artists of the Group of
Seven conceived, had vision and created. The McMichaels took that
seed, cared for it and planted it. They gave it to the people of
Ontario. The seed of the artists' creations thrived and grew into
a tree. This tree is much bigger and more complex than the seed
that was planted. It is now subject to the wind, the seasons and
the environment it stands in. The tree has the strength of the
years and complex hardwood supporting it. The leaves come and go
each year in a celebration of colours. The tree is always
magnificent and alive. At first it was fragile and susceptible to
the possibility of poor soil or lack of water. Now, however, it
affects the climate around it by cooling, warming and moderating
the effect of heavy rains.
The collection is now much,
much more than it was when the McMichaels planted it. If we sell
off the newer works and stop showing the work of recent and
current seasons, we are in effect slicing off the tree at the
widest point of the trunk, varnishing it and displaying it,
saying, "Count the rings and see the magnificent tree we grew."
The McMichael Canadian collection is alive and magnificent. Do
not cut it down.
This weekend I have coming up
a thrill of my lifetime. I am showing and selling some of my own
paintings at the McMichael autumn art sale. Along with 49 other
artists, I am participating in this fundraiser for the McMichael
volunteer committee. I invite the members of this committee to
come, see and talk to living artists in a gallery that is very
much alive. Although this is the first time I have been in a
McMichael art sale, I predict that you will see there diverse and
beautiful images of this diverse and beautiful country.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Gilbert. That leaves us just over two minutes for
questioning. This time it will be for the NDP.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, Ms Gilbert, for your
presentation. I like some of the poetic imagery you used to
describe your feelings.
In my quick two minutes or
less, I want to talk to you about the mandate and then ask you a
question about that. The original 1965 mandate said the mandate
was limited to the Group of Seven and three other named artists,
plus others designated by the advisory committee-so it says
"others"-"who have made contributions to the development of
Canadian art." Is there anything in that mandate that I read to
you, from 1965, that the McMichael gallery has strayed away from,
on the basis of what I just read to you?
Ms Gilbert:
I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on what the mandate was
originally or whether or not it strayed away from that. What I
see now is a gallery that wants to step back in history and wants
to cut off the living part of its existence.
Mr Marchese:
I appreciate your answer. My point is that as I read the mandate,
we have been consistent with it. I say "we" because I've accepted
what the McMichael has done through the course of its history,
accept it as part of what the gallery is like, what I believe to
be a very good, living, breathing gallery that reflects very much
the contributions Canadian
artists have made. The government claims we haven't respected
that mandate. That's why I read the mandate to you, because it
includes the Group of Seven and three others, plus any other
artists "who have made contributions to the development of
Canadian art." My point is, we've been faithful to that. Why
would they want to change it?
Ms Gilbert:
If we think it takes eight artists to make a country, something's
wrong. It takes many people and it's an evolving process. It's
not something we stop in history and say, "This is it. This is
what was good. Now we're going to keep that like it was." It's
like the tree. It's magnificent when you see one of those big,
cut-off trees and you can count the rings-"Gee, this one was here
when Columbus sailed"-but it's not a living tree any more. The
McMichael is alive.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Gilbert, and all the best this weekend at the
sale.
LYNN BEVAN
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Ms Lynn Bevan. Good afternoon,
and welcome to the committee.
Ms Lynn
Bevan: My name is Lynn Bevan and I speak in unqualified
support of Bill 112. I would like to say from the outset that I'm
not a supporter of any particular political party. Anyone who
tried to align me with any party would have difficulty doing so.
To me, Bill 112 is not a question of politics, and I've been very
sorry to see it reduced to that. To me, Bill 112 is a question of
integrity, specifically integrity in governing, and I don't say
integrity in government.
We have heard art historians,
critics, artists and others say what works of art they would like
to see in the McMichael collection. We have even heard some
speculate what the Group of Seven would say should be in this
collection. But I ask you, does that really matter? This is a
collection, and it's a collection that was given on terms and
accepted on terms. It is not the first and it is not the only
collection created by private donors, attached to a particular
location, a particular building. Two examples, of which I'm sure
you've heard, are the Frick in New York City and Sir John Soane's
Museum in London, England.
I would also like to say that
this is not the only place in Ontario or Canada where artists can
exhibit. When I hear concerns expressed about the impact on
limiting this collection to the basis on which it was given, I
find that insulting to other artists and to other institutions.
It's to suggest that the only place of value for artists to
exhibit is the McMichael collection. It suggests that the only
place available to some artists is the McMichael collection. It
suggests that unless the McMichael collection accepted gifts of
certain artists, their art would have no value. I'm hopeful that
you don't listen to those comments without considering what
they're really saying.
I also find the comments
about deaccessioning being present or not present in this bill
mystifying. Deaccessioning is like trying to guess the stock
market. Deaccessioning can be done in a rational way. It also
again goes to the question, does it suggest that works that may
not be suitable for the McMichael collection would have no home
elsewhere? Those artists who might not be within the mandate of
the collection again might be insulted.
1610
If there's any doubt as to
the scope of this collection, ask the donors, Bob and Signe
McMichael, what they meant when they gave their home, their land
and their art. There's no need to speculate. They're still alive,
and I believe that the treatment they have received is shameful.
The government of Ontario has been complicit in that shameful
behaviour for the last 20 years. What I find most appalling is
that part of that shameful treatment has come from the recent
administrators of the collection itself. In press releases,
catalogues and interviews, administrators state that the
McMichaels made one gift 35 years ago. This statement completely
ignores the fact that without that gift there would be no
McMichael collection and those administrators and trustees would
have nothing to administer. It is not to me a question of
narrowing a focus but of restoring it.
It is also incorrect, and I
would suggest unfair, to say that the McMichaels made one gift 35
years ago. The McMichaels have made almost yearly gifts of art to
the collection since 1965. Those additional gifts are worth over
$1 million. The claim of one gift only also ignores the efforts
made by Bob and Signe McMichael, both as unpaid curators and
promoters to have others donate to the collection, allowing it to
grow with a limited acquisition budget.
These same administrators
have from time to time claimed that the McMichaels obtained a
huge tax relief at the time of their gift. Simple research would
show that there was no tax relief for gifts of art in 1965. When
relief came later, it was of limited use to the McMichaels,
because by then they were unpaid curators with limited income and
they were given an extremely short time frame within which to use
that retroactive relief.
Not surprisingly, given the
source of this apparently official information, the press has
repeated these stories over and over again. More recent
opposition has become personal and spiteful. The McMichaels have
remained steadfast and loyal to the collection that they founded.
My own view is that they should have said to the government of
the day, whichever one it was, a long time ago, "Give it back. If
you can't do what you said you would do-we did what we said we
would do-then just give it back." Why would anyone make a similar
gift to government in light of the McMichaels' experience?
The McMichaels could still be
sitting in their house, with that wonderful view, sharing their
extraordinary art collection with a select group of friends. They
could have sold their art to private collectors. Instead, they
gave it to the people of Canada for all time. What people like
the McMichaels give no government can ever create, and we
would all be the poorer,
in my view, if it were not for gifts of this kind.
When I look at Bill 112, I
like to look at it as a reflection of the gratitude of the people
of Ontario, speaking through their government, to the McMichaels,
but perhaps much more significantly it also recognizes that
governments must keep their word if they're going to maintain the
confidence of the people. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
That leaves us about two minutes for questions. This time it will
be from the government benches.
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): Thank you very much for coming
before us today. I have very little to question you on other than
that I want to compliment you. I think, along with a few other
presenters before us, you have come right to the heart of the
matter. I think your presentation was very articulate and
heartfelt. Are you an artist yourself?
Ms Bevan: I
am a lawyer.
Mrs Elliott:
You're a lawyer. That's very interesting.
Ms Bevan:
But I was a guide at the McMichael gallery in 1965 and it changed
my life.
Mrs Elliott:
Isn't that interesting. So you have had a very long connection
with this particular gallery.
Ms Bevan: I
have indeed.
Mrs Elliott:
I think what you're saying is what we've been feeling here on the
government side, that this is a matter of integrity. It's a
matter of restoring it to the spirit of 1965 and indeed honouring
the collection. We would agree with you, and I think one
presenter put it very well: this collection will be diminished by
trying to be everything to everybody all the time. But thank you
very much for your comments.
You mentioned at one point
you thought that seeing the gallery and seeing the collection
change so much over the years, it might have been useful for the
McMichaels to say to the government of the day, "Give it back,"
when they saw it going off the rails, so to speak. It was I think
with the Liberal government in 1989 where things really went off
the rails. If you look in the Hansard, the minister of the day
refers to her vision of the changing collection to be a dynamic
collection, a changing collection; not to say that it can't be a
dynamic and wonderful collection today, but I think it was at
that point where we on the government side felt the direction of
the collection in the province was beginning to go off the
rails.
I compliment you and I
thank you very much for coming before us today. I appreciate the
advice from someone who has had a long and obviously a very
heartfelt connection with this particular institution.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Bevan. I appreciate very much your taking the time
to come before the committee today.
JOHN MCEWEN
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Mr John McEwen. Good afternoon
and welcome to the committee.
Mr John
McEwen: I'm of course the sculptor who made Babylon,
which is installed at the McMichael. I've been a sculptor for
over half my life, which is more than 28 years, and I've made my
living from it exclusively in the last 15. I'd like to read a
statement, essentially, into the record, for the speed, about my
work.
I was asked recently by
Matthew Teitelbaum, director of the Art Gallery of Ontario,
whether I considered Babylon, my sculpture at the McMichael
Canadian Art Collection, to be site-specific. The answer is a
resounding yes. The McMichael is the optimum place of dialogue
for Babylon. It was, after all, specifically designed to be
installed along the long, winding driveway into the collection,
which it was meant to introduce. "Site-specific" means that a
sculpture is so thoroughly integrated into its site, both
physically and contextually, that to move it would effectively
sever the intended dialogue.
Babylon was originally
commissioned for a two-year period, and had it not been bought
and donated to the McMichael, it would after the two years have
been returned to me, and it would have been up to me to find a
new place of dialogue. That is the life of any artwork that isn't
more than a shiny jewel in a vault.
The attack on my work at
the McMichael is both rhetorically crude and, in the end,
sentimental. You might consider the vault, but first consider the
word "Babylon." I like how it sounds, I like its origin in Psalm
137 and I like how I came across it in Rivers of Babylon, a song
from Jamaica-reggae music by the Melodians. Babylon is a classic
tale of the fit we feel in the landscape. Obviously, the Israelis
didn't feel a good fit several millennia or so ago.
Babylon is about a longing
to be in one's landscape. Babylon may even be a longing for a
lost landscape but not an unpeopled one. My wolf stands next to
the satellite dish. That's our landscape, neither unpeopled nor
blank.
1620
Art is alive when it's
reviewed and revisited. My time at the McMichael left me with a
renewed interest in the Group of Seven and people like Northrop
Frye who thought deeply about them. Yes, you can think about
art.
Removed from the McMichael
or not, my work will continue to think about our nature and our
place in the Canadian landscape. Two new works of mine do just
that. The work being sent by the city of Mississauga to its
sister city in Japan does that-that, by the way, is a bear and
canoe-and so does the 20-foot-high Rocky Mountain ram's horn that
I am currently developing in Calgary.
In reality, Bill 112
destroys the very idea of dialogue. In 1995 I created a memorial
in Coronation Park here in Toronto to the contribution made by
Canadians at home and abroad during the Second World War. That's
my parents' generation.
In the memorial there are 50 words for peace that would be
recognizable in today's Toronto. That's quite different from the
Toronto of my parents. But the word "peace" was a result of their
generation and that makes the memorial a dialogue between
generations.
Situated at the McMichael,
Babylon is also a dialogue between generations.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That allows us about four minutes for
questioning. This time the rotation will take us back to the
Liberals.
Ms Di
Cocco: Thank you for your presentation about the spirit
and the intent of an artist that is exhibited at the McMichael.
My biggest concern about this process is that what we're
discussing are curatorial definitions. What we're doing here with
this act, in my estimation, is deciding what is constituted as
Canadian art. That's what, unfortunately, seems to be the topic.
What I'd like to know from you, if I could, because it seems to
me you said Bill 112 destroys the idea of dialogue: can you
expand just a little bit on that when it comes to how this bill
is affecting you as an artist who has exhibited and has been
there for the length of time that you have?
Mr McEwen:
I'm not sure whether it will have an effect in the future for me.
The opportunities and the kind of work I'm doing will not be
affected, but the basic reality is that the young always win, and
20 years from now they're going to win over me. You can't keep a
dialogue going as an ostrich, basically.
Ms Di
Cocco: The argument the government gives in regard to
this bill is that it's going to restore financial stability. Do
you have any comments on that?
Mr McEwen:
No, not really.
Ms Di
Cocco: None at all.
Just one other item, if I
could, with regard to the McMichael. Did you donate your-
Mr McEwen:
No, it was bought by a collector and donated. As I said, had it
not been bought, then it would have been my problem to place it
in a new kind of dialogue.
Ms Di
Cocco: Thank you. I have no more questions.
The Chair:
Thank you for taking the time to come and make your presentation
before us.
DON LAKE
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by Mr Don Lake. Good afternoon, Mr
Lake, and welcome to the committee.
Mr Don
Lake: I speak here as a member of the small business
community. I own a gallery in Toronto at 1199 Yonge Street. I
have a firm of five people. The firm has been in business since
1978. My concerns are with the marketplace and what I believe
this bill represents. My firm pays a considerable amount of
taxes, including taxes on approximately 12,000 square feet of
retail space in Toronto, which is getting more expensive.
In my opinion, and I have
prepared a brief, these are what the facts are. Mr and Mrs
McMichael gave their collection to the public-to the public-in
1965. All relevant parties agreed the enabling legislation was
appropriate and fair. Over a long period of time, in my opinion,
the McMichaels have tried to regain control of this collection.
Successive boards of the McMichael have been forced to go into
deficits, to a large degree as a direct result of the high cost
of ongoing litigation brought on by the McMichaels.
Notwithstanding the immense pressure of McMichael, the boards and
staff have been able to build a very significant collection. No
provincial government has been prepared to defend the public
interest by directly defending and paying for the public's right
to control its own assets in a professional curatorial manner.
The current government has in fact decided to back the interests
of McMichael, not the public's.
The McMichaels' view of the
tradition of this collection is false. The Group of Seven was not
an exclusive group at a certain time in history. Rather, the
group was inclusive, doing a series of shows where a broad range
of artists were invited to participate. The Canadian Group of
Painters grew directly from the group shows, which were disbanded
in 1931. The tradition of the Group of Seven is open, inclusive.
In its inception it was a radical rupture with the past. May I
say that I have a Group of Seven show on as we speak. I have a
big position in the Group. I am a big believer in the Group. I
believe their tradition is not narrow.
Successive boards of the
McMichael have developed a wonderful and important collection of
Canadian art of all periods, particularly the collection of First
Nation artists. The McMichael board has ensured outstanding
scholarship and publications which are very important to all
Canadians.
It is my opinion that this
government has a duty of care, and that duty of care is very
broad. It is not simply to the McMichaels' version of what this
collection is all about. Neither the public nor the government
owes anything to McMichael. The gift was given, a great thanks
was bestowed and McMichael received the appropriate
considerations under the tax act and related legislation of the
day. Indeed, McMichael even received lodging at the expense of
the public.
There is a duty of care to
the rights of the public. That duty is best exercised by creating
a professional board and staff that act in the best interests of
Canadian art and the public. The board and staff must be
independent of government and any particular interests. There is
a duty of care to the immediate surrounding community. A
substantial level of economic growth has occurred directly as a
result of the vibrant programming of the staff and board of this
institution. An attempt to shortcut this programming will have a
negative impact directly in 905. Please allow me to disclose that
my firm had an opportunity to purchase a property at the right
price on the main street in Kleinburg recently. We decided that
given the political tampering with the gallery, which is the main
reason why any art gallery would be in Kleinburg, the risk that
this town could be destroyed by political interference was
significant enough for us to conclude that an investment in this town at this
time would be unwise.
There is also, in my
opinion, a duty of care to tourism and the many children who
attend this institution via buses. If the collection becomes
stagnant as a result of a very narrow and false view of Canadian
art, visitors will have no reason to keep attending and seeing
the same narrow collection. Let me point out that this collection
is definitely inferior to the AGO and the National Gallery in the
Group of Seven. Both of those collections are in Ontario. If one
wishes to see a great Group of Seven collection, one, generally
speaking, would not go to the McMichael. However, it does contain
many other important collections, especially Inuit, and that is
of great international interest and that does bring tourism and
that does bring dollars to this province.
1630
There is also a duty of
care to the artists in Ontario and Canada. The promotion of
contemporary art makes that art economically viable. Taxpayers
have a substantial investment in art education. As most artists
in Canada live at or below the poverty line, it is politically
prudent to show support and create markets for this art.
There is also a duty of
care to the donors, who have also very generously given, as the
McMichaels have given, to this collection. That art should be
removed because of political interference raises grave questions
about the character of political interference in this collection,
which leads to liability, and I don't think this government needs
to create any new liability.
We live in a democratic
society governed by Parliament. All members of our society should
be treated equally. If one donor-collector is treated in a
certain fashion, then all donors and collectors can and should be
treated in the same fashion. What is to stop other institutions
from changing the way they operate and also commencing to treat
their donors in the same way that McMichael will be treated in
this proposed legislation?
The current government or
governments in the future can start to change the arm's-length
relationship between themselves and public institutions. Lobbying
could commence immediately for other institutions to change the
manner in which they are treated or the way in which their board
is treated. McMichael is not the only donor who wishes to have
his cake and eat it too. Believe me, there are some very
aggressive donors out there.
What is to stop other
donors from bringing class actions or individual actions against
this government or this institution if there is an attempt to
disperse their art, which they have given in good faith, in the
same good faith that Mr McMichael gave his material? I have
spoken-and believe me, this is so-to a number of collectors who
have given art to this collection in good faith, and they would
be immediately prepared to join a class action if there were an
attempt to disperse their gifts. That would of course also be
true for artists, such as the last speaker. A deal is a deal is a
deal not only for Mr McMichael, whatever he may allege. There
were many other gifters here. I don't think you want the
liability.
Conclusions: This act will
have an entirely negative impact on the institution and the
taxpayers. This act will open up a new level of liability to the
taxpayers. This act will change via political interference the
arm's-length relationship between government and institutions.
The precedent that this political tampering will set will create
a situation that is not in the public interest.
Recommendations:
(1) This committee
recommends that this legislation not be passed.
(2) The committee
recommends that new overriding legislation be introduced that
forbids any gifts being given to the province that have any
conditions whatsoever placed upon them.
(3) The committee
recommends that the province closely look at the way that boards
are constituted in Ontario. The principle of arm's-length
relationships should be enshrined. Governments put people on
boards based on patronage rather than merit, and that's true for
all three parties in this room. The people whom governments put
on boards are most often not qualified, and that's an
understatement. They do not understand the dynamics of these
institutions or the art market. A successful car parts
manufacturer may know how to run a large company and he may be a
wonderful party supporter, but it does not follow that he knows
how to run a gallery.
(4) Government involvement
must be only in cases of irregularities on the part of
boards.
(5) The current government
is concerned with the efficient expenditure of tax dollars. The
only way this can be guaranteed is if institutions are
professionally run, boards are constituted on merit, not
nepotism, and those in control of public assets do not have a
separate agenda. Therefore, the original enabling legislation
that all parties agreed to must be allowed to stand in the best
interests of the public.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Lake. You went slightly over, but clearly we
appreciate the perspective you've brought. Thank you for taking
the time. Best of luck in your show. I see that your new venture
is starting up on December 1.
COMPAQ CANADA
The Chair:
The next presentation will be from Compaq Canada. Mr John
Challinor, good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.
Mr John
Challinor: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, on
behalf of the senior management team and employees at Compaq
Canada, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
this standing committee to offer counsel on Bill 112, An Act to
amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act.
The reason for Compaq
Canada's appearance this afternoon is really quite simple: as the
official technology supplier to the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection, the company has invested more than $500,000 at the
McMichael as part of a
three-year sponsorship agreement announced on November 16, 1999,
less than a year ago. We want to ensure that our investment
continues to be valued by all concerned and, further, that it
continues to be protected. The context for Compaq Canada's
submission today is as follows.
Compaq Canada empathizes
with the position the government of Ontario finds itself in
today. The financial position of the McMichael came as a surprise
to the government. It most certainly came as a surprise to
Compaq. The government is no doubt disappointed with a number of
parties associated with the McMichael, possibly even the board of
directors and those individuals who were appointed by the
government to ensure that its investments were being properly
managed.
Given the national
significance of the collection at the McMichael, the government
has a burdensome responsibility regardless of the financial
position of the McMichael. The McMichael has to be a financially
sound, fiscally responsible institution, yet remain open and
accessible to all Canadians, which are somewhat historically
disparate goals in the cultural community. Most Canadians don't
understand the high wire museums tread in their attempts to
achieve these sometimes conflicting objectives. All they want to
do is view the art whenever they feel the urge to do so.
Rightly or wrongly, the
government of Ontario will be held accountable by all Canadians,
and particularly Ontarians, if the McMichael does not remain
accessible. Thus, the government not only has a responsibility to
ensure that the McMichael continues to be a viable entity but, to
use the marketing vernacular of the new millennium, that the
McMichael remains an experience and a destination.
Compaq Canada is fully
supportive of the government of Ontario's requirement that the
McMichael be managed in a fiscally responsible manner, and that
the board of directors at the McMichael reflect that government
dictum and not only be responsible for ensuring that the
institution is managed in a fiscally responsible manner, but also
be ethical in their dealings with sponsors like ourselves and
other partners, the government itself and the general public.
Compaq has some questions.
We seek clarification of article 1, which states, "The bill also
recognizes that the focus of the collection has changed over time
and that it is appropriate to return the collection to, and then
maintain it in, the spirit of its original focus." Unless this
article is well defined, in our view any debate that has taken
place vis-à-vis focus will continue unabated.
Compaq seeks clarification
of article 4, which states, "The art advisory committee is ...
empowered to designate the artists who have made contributions to
the development of Canadian art." As written, this committee
would have a substantial level of authority within the McMichael,
perhaps beyond that of the board or the executive director.
Beyond that, this committee appears to have been afforded
authority that could be viewed as being beyond the McMichael's
mandate. In our opinion, any responsibility beyond the mandate of
the McMichael is the purview of Heritage Canada.
Compaq seeks clarification
of subsection 3.l(1), which states, "Robert McMichael, founder
director emeritus, and Signe McMichael are trustees for life or
until they are unable or unwilling to continue to be trustees."
If the McMichaels are unable to continue to be trustees, how will
that be determined and dealt with in a sensitive manner that is
in the best interests of both parties? Further, how is the public
interest being served in permitting them to select trustees to
replace themselves?
Compaq seeks clarification
as to the general authority and responsibilities of the Minister
of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation when it comes to the
management of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. It appears
that the minister's involvement extends beyond policy direction
to include operational management.
Compaq seeks clarification
as to the general authority and responsibilities of the executive
director of the McMichael, particularly as they relate to the
Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the board of
directors and the art advisory committee. It appears that the
executive director will have little authority, yet a continuing
considerable amount of accountability. It also appears that the
executive director will be responsible to the minister, to the
board and perhaps even to the art advisory committee.
1640
In closing, the legislation
appears draconian in nature, given the real issue at hand at the
McMichael, as Compaq Canada understands it. We aren't convinced
that amending legislation was ever required to deal with what we
see as a financial management matter. Our solution is this:
financially enlightened senior management is most certainly
required, as is an involved and active board of directors that is
fiscally responsible, socially conscious and politically
accountable.
Those are my comments, Mr
Chairman.
The Chair:
Thank you. That leaves us about three minutes for
questioning.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Challinor, thanks for your presentation,
because you raised good questions that we're all asking
ourselves. For me, I want to get right to the heart of the
problem. My concern is that this government, through this bill,
is violating the original agreement.
Interruption.
Mr
Marchese: I may be wrong. That's my opinion, and that's
why I think this government is wrong. The original mandate says
the following. Were you here earlier? I'll read it again: the
mandate is limited to the Group of Seven and three other named
artists, plus others designated by the advisory committee, "who
have made contributions to the development of Canadian art."
That's the spirit that I think the McMichael has operated out of
since 1965. It's in that spirit that Mr McMichael continued to
the 1980s, when he was the director from 1972 to 1980.
In law, when that
Conservative government of the old days changed the mandate to
specify that all works of art must not be "inconsistent with the general
character of the collection," I read it as in the same spirit as
1965. I wouldn't have changed it, but the Tories at the time
decided to do it, in law, and that's what we've got. There are
various changes made to the mandate, but I see them as all
consistent with the original agreement.
Have you had a chance to
look at the original mandate, to see whether you think these
people are right, and that they might be violating the spirit of
the 1965 agreement?
Mr
Challinor: I have not viewed the original agreement. The
only concern we have with respect to the issue you've raised is
that it be well defined. I think it has been open to
interpretation, and I think we all know that whenever things are
open to interpretation, they're open to interpretation by just
about anybody. That is the issue.
Our concern of course is
this: if the collection becomes too narrowly defined, it will not
have an awful lot of public value, and if it doesn't have a lot
of public value that means there will be fewer people going
through the gallery, which means fewer people will see our
contribution to that gallery.
Mr
Marchese: You're absolutely right. I'm concerned about
that focus. They say, "and return it to the spirit of its
original focus," which is what I was reading out of the mandate
of 1965, and I'm concerned that the McMichaels, through the
so-called advisory committee, which is really in charge of
acquisitions, are going to decide who also will be in the
McMichael collection in addition to the Group of Seven, so it'll
be left to them. You're worried about the possible narrow focus.
At least it should be defined somehow.
Mr
Challinor: It should be very clearly defined, as to what
the focus of the gallery will be. I can tell you-and I think this
is not news to anybody who sits around this committee, because
we're all consumers-the museum community has had to change
considerably in the last 30 years. They have had to change their
attitude considerably. I just spoke at a museum association
meeting in Victoria two weeks ago on this subject, the subject of
sponsorship. They've all had to find more creative ways to keep
people coming through the gates to maintain their financial
stability. If anything, that speaks to actually increasing, not
decreasing, the focus of what they do, but within the parameters
of their mandate. Sometimes that mandate has to change.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Challinor. I appreciate your taking the time to
come before us this afternoon.
DAVID SILCOX
The Chair:
When the agenda was typed up, the clerk informs me there was one
error. There should have been written in at 4:40 Mr David Silcox.
Mr Silcox, would you come forward, please. The floor is
yours.
Mr David
Silcox: Good afternoon, members of the committee. I want
to thank you very much for having me here this afternoon. I
apologize for not having been here last week. I had hoped to hear
what was being said by some of the other people who appeared
before you.
My credentials for coming
to talk about this issue go back some 40 years, during which time
I've been involved with art gallery and museum policy, starting
at Hart House at the University of Toronto, where I'm now the
director of the art center there, at the Canada Council, where I
initiated the museum's assistance program, and on through various
capacities including the assistant deputy minister responsible
for culture and museums at the federal level and the Deputy
Minister of Culture and Communications for this province for five
years.
I've also written on the
artist Tom Thomson and David Milne, particularly David
Milne-although the book on Tom Thomson sold better-and I've
appeared before a number of Senate committees, House of Commons
committees and legislative committees over the years.
I find it a little
unsettling that this issue, which has seized so many people in
the cultural community, has been so structured that a lot of
people whom you should be hearing from are not getting enough
time to really discuss the issue substantially.
This legislation, in my
view, is a form of cultural liposuction. It's cosmetic, it's
risky, and I think some of the results that it may achieve may be
unexpected. The facts, as I see them, are that the original
mandate, which was established back in 1965, has been followed by
all subsequent boards, curators, directors and staff who have
served the McMichael with many, many hours of volunteer time over
the years.
The Group of Seven, which
is the core of the collection, stood for both revolution and
tradition. It was 30 or 40 years after the Group of Seven was
formed before Mr McMichael came upon the scene and began to form
his collection.
The Group of Seven inspired
many of the artists they lived with during the 1920s and 1930s
and they inspire artists today, artists who draw their
inspiration from Tom Thomson, J.E.H. Macdonald, Lawren Harris,
David Milne and people of that generation. I suspect none of
today's artists, or very few, would support this legislation, and
I very much doubt that the original members of the Group of Seven
would, if they were here to talk about it. Mr McMichael and a few
friends, none of them professional curators, directors, artists
or arts administrators, disagree because they basically want
control of the McMichael collection again.
The collection was a gift
to the people of this province, who now own it and who paid for
it and paid for it over the years. The donors, Robert and Signe
McMichael, had been very well compensated through taxes and
through direct payment for their gift. That Mr McMichael wants to
control this collection again I understand, but that the
government would allow him to do so I find quite frankly
incredulous.
It's not a question of this
collection and the place it's in being frozen in time. No
institutions I know are frozen in time. They've cited the Frick
collection, I understand. It has changed; it still adds to its collection.
The Wallace collection in London, even the Barnes collection, are
having to face up to the fact that they can't remain static
forever.
What's wrong with this
legislation is that it's wrong-headed and inappropriate, I think,
on four counts.
First of all, nothing is
broken. The policies, the practices, the administrative
structures, the reporting and the auditing processes that are set
up for this public institution are all in place and they're all
working. It's really only Mr McMichael who thinks it's broken,
and I disagree with him. You have a responsible board, you
appoint members to the board-the government has that
opportunity-there's a professional staff and there are sister
institutions who would let you know pretty fast if there was
anything really wrong at the McMichael.
1650
Second, the governance
issues: I think that creating an advisory committee in the way
that's proposed by the legislation, which Mr McMichael will
control, undercuts the board and sets a very bad example. It's
too much concentration on too few people. I don't quite
understand how the board can fulfill its proper function in the
face of an advisory committee which basically gets an opportunity
to second-guess it. This legislation may mollify the original
donors-and this is my third point-who have already been
exceptionally, and excessively, one would say, mollified, but it
betrays all other donors, who both greatly outnumber the
McMichaels and outweigh them in terms of the gifts they have
given to public institutions in this province.
I really believe that that
betrayal of the trust is something that really has to be looked
at. I'll set aside the issue of the financial implications of it,
but if you deaccession any work, the institution is going to have
to pay the cultural property review board quite handsomely for
that. The tax, by the way, is 30% for any works deaccessioned
that were acquired in the last 10 years, and in the case of the
McMichael that comes close to nearly $5 million. So you figure it
out. It's $1.5 million that'll be due if the works of the last 10
years were to be put up to auction.
Finally, my fourth point is
that this legislation really throws the institution into a
financial limbo. It has been there really for the last two or
three years because of the confusion and uncertainty. The donors
of both art and money will go elsewhere if there is uncertainty,
and I think it's a very bad signal. I simply don't think that is
the way to structure a public trust, which is what the McMichael
is.
I'm surprised that in the
face of a united collection of opinion from museum professionals
from across the country-the museums association, Ontario
Association of Art Galleries-you would actually proceed with this
legislation. Some legislation, I quite understand, is unpleasant
but necessary, taxation bills being a good example, but this
legislation is just plain wrong and the unpleasant consequences
are, unfortunately, predictable.
I support the Canadian
Museums Association's call for a thorough review. I wish you
would suspend the process of going ahead with this legislation,
and I would certainly urge Compaq to go on hold until they find
out exactly how this institution is going to be structured.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Silcox, and you have timed it perfectly.
I appreciate your taking the time to come before the committee
and be our final presentation for this portion of the
parliamentary proceedings.
Mr Silcox:
I hope you take my comments to heart. Thank you.
The Chair:
I'm sure all the members will. Thank you very much.
With that, we will move
into clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 112. The Chair will
deliver the appropriately ordered packet of amendments. I believe
there are 10 in total. The first motion is a government motion.
Mrs Elliott?
Mrs
Elliott: I move that section 2 of the bill, paragraph 3
of section 1.1 of the act-that paragraph 3 be removed and
replaced with the following-
Interjection.
Mrs
Elliott: Sorry. I have to read the exact words.
The Chair:
Forgive me, Mrs Elliott. I neglected to notice that section 1.1,
so we'll have to approve section 1 first, after any debate. Is
there any debate on section 1 of the act? Seeing none, I'll put
the question.
All those in favour of
section 1?
Mr
Marchese: On a recorded vote.
The Chair:
A recorded vote has been requested by Mr Marchese.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That section carries. Now over to you, Mrs Elliott.
Mrs
Elliott: This is in section 2?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mrs
Elliott: I move that paragraph 3 of section 1.1 of the
act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the
following substituted:
"3. Robert and Signe
McMichael had a vision that the gallery and the art collection
that it housed would continue to retain the spirit that they had
originally created by remaining true to its focus on those
artists who had celebrated the nation's beauty in a uniquely
Canadian way."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mrs
Elliott: This is reflective of some of the comments we
heard in the presentations. We believe, for instance, by changing
"nation" from "province," it reflects a broader appreciation and more truly
reflects the nature of the collection.
The Chair:
Further debate?
Ms Di
Cocco: I'm going to go back to some of the other
submissions that have been made regarding the public interest.
This is a public gallery. It's been paid for over and over again
by taxpayer dollars. There was a vision that was set out. There
was an agreement, and that agreement has changed over the years.
This motion says, "Robert and Signe McMichael had a vision that
the gallery and the art collection that it housed would continue
to retain the spirit that they had originally created by
remaining true to its focus on those artists who had celebrated
the nation's beauty in a uniquely Canadian way."
If they had a specific
vision that they wanted at the time of the agreement in 1965,
with all of the, if you want to call it, legal opinion, why did
they not put it in there? Why are you, as the government, putting
into legislation personal visions for an art gallery? I disagree
with it vehemently. It's a breach of trust of your role in the
conduct of governance in this province on crown corporations such
as the McMichael gallery.
Mr George
Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): One further point.
I agree with what my colleague said. I think it's interesting
that the words contained here are "remaining true" when we know
that over time there have been what I would call temperamental
vacillations with respect to what was in and what wasn't. The
list has not been a consistent list. There are paintings by
artists that were purchased during a time when Mr McMichael was
in control of the decisions around what to purchase that don't
make the final list. So to suggest "remaining true to its focus
on those artists who had celebrated the nation's beauty," to
suggest there is some consistent list that was there in 1965 and
which continues until now in some consistent fashion is erroneous
and I think makes a mockery of this paragraph 3.
Mr
Marchese: I ask your indulgence before I speak to this.
I'll put all my objections to this bill on the table either now
in relation to this amendment or get rid of this amendment and
then I'll speak later. It's up to you.
The Chair:
Feel free to put all of your comments on the record now, Mr
Marchese.
1700
Mr
Marchese: Thank you very much, unless Mrs Elliott would
like to speak in advance of me. Would you like to do that? I can
wait. Mrs Elliot, would you like to go first?
Mrs
Elliott: It doesn't matter to me, Chair.
Mr
Marchese: I'd like to hear what she has to say.
Mrs
Elliott: I was just going to say that perhaps my
colleagues across the way are forgetting that this is a purpose
clause. This part of the bill is to set the stage as to what was
in the past. If you look at the bill carefully, 1 to 3 indicate
this is the way it was. By replacing the word "province" with the
word "nation," we're reflecting artists like Emily Carr, for
instance, who were in the original collection, but it then says
in point 4 under section 2 that "The focus of the collection has
changed over time." The part we're amending speaks to what we
believe was the original focus of the agreement.
Mr
Marchese: I'm just going to start by saying that I'll be
voting against the entire bill because the premise is
fundamentally wrong and the amendments really don't do anything.
What this government is doing is dumb, politically. I'll tell you
why. You recall when the government came in in 1995 they said
they wanted to get government off your back. Do you remember
that? I remember that too. Rather than having the government off
your back on many issues, man, do they climb all over you when
they want to.
This is one example where
the government ought to stay away from political interference,
and they decided to directly intervene in an area where, in my
view, they have no understanding and/or intelligence.
To get to the mandate, my
view is that this government through this bill is violating the
original agreement. It's actually violating it. As opposed to
getting it on the right track, they're in my view getting it off
track. I'm going to review the mandate for Mrs Elliott's benefit
because I think they need to know this stuff; we're going to
debate this for third reading.
The original agreement said
that the mandate is limited to the Group of Seven and three other
named artists plus others designated by the advisory committee
"who have made contributions to the development of Canadian art."
So it's open-ended. It means anybody, any artist who has made a
contribution to the development of Canadian art. Quite apart from
the Group of Seven plus three others, we have accepted many more
artists, who are Canadian, who have made a contribution, on the
basis of that 1965 agreement. Mr McMichael was part of it.
Interruption.
Mr
Marchese: Sorry. Those "who have made contributions to
the development of Canadian art" is open-ended and, yes, you're
right, they're not designated.
The mandate is limited to
the Group of Seven and three other named artists plus others
designated by the advisory committee. So in my view we have
respected the mandate of 1965. I say "we" because, having been a
minister in 1990, I accepted that mandate. I wasn't foolish
enough to change course, as you people are doing. I think you're
making a tremendous political mistake. It's a political blunder
that all of you will suffer for. You don't think so now. You
think you're doing something decent and trying to bring the
mandate back to what perhaps Mr-
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): That's exactly what we think.
Mr
Marchese: Yes, I know, Mr Dunlop, but I'll continue. I'm
waiting for your interventions in a few moments.
In 1972 you Tories
introduced a law-you guys, not them, the Libs; you, your
predecessors. I know you probably don't like them very much, but
they did this in 1972. The mandate was changed to specify that
all artworks must not be
"inconsistent with the general character of the collection." I
find that consistent with the 1965 mandate, even though they
reworded it as they did, in law, in 1972. Mr McMichael was there
at the time, and he was named director from 1972 to 1980. He was
part of all of this then, and the government did this with Mr
McMichael, your government, the Conservatives, in 1972.
In 1982, the Conservatives
again changed the law. That would be you again.
Mr Dunlop:
We understand when you're pointing over here. We don't have a
problem with that.
The Chair:
Order, Mr Dunlop.
Mr
Marchese: Take your time, take it easy. I'm going to
listen to you too.
The "mandate is changed to
restore list of 10 specified artists"-the seven plus the
three-"and in addition art by indigenous peoples"-so we included
indigenous peoples, which wasn't part of the original-"is to be
collected; and work by other artists who have made contributions
to the development of Canadian art, `and whose artworks and
objects will be consistent with the general character of the
collection.'"
Again, in 1982 you guys
changed the mandate again. I've got to admit, I don't find it
inconsistent with the 1965 mandate. I still find it consistent.
Something happened here, because the director emeritus-that would
be Mr McMichael-left by some deal in 1980. There was some deal
that was struck. I'm not quite sure what that deal was.
I want to submit something
that was given to us, which is the financial statement and report
of the audit for the year ending March 31, 1980. Ms Stokes, if
you don't mind passing it out, because I think the members should
see it. We can get a clearer copy, perhaps a longer one, if they
need it.
Why Mr McMichael left had
to do with a lot of problems that were being experienced while he
was there. It has to do with the valuation of works of art, which
the auditor points to as a particular problem; a special fund
that they speak about; unreported taxable benefits; directors'
expenses; housekeeping; internal audit being recommended, because
there was none; works of art on loan and the problems associated
with that; receiving of goods and sale of works of art.
They have nothing to do
with anything, you might add. You might argue that when it is
your turn. I think it speaks to some of the problems, and if
indeed there might have been some financial problems this perhaps
speaks to them, and I think you should see it. It might have some
bearing on this bill that you're passing in terms of what you may
or may not want to do with it.
I introduce it at this time
because before you pass the bill you might want to consider it
and defer it. I would recommend it. There were problems at the
time that the auditor speaks to that most of you in the business
world would find a bit troublesome. I raise it for your interest.
If you don't touch on this today and if you don't deal with this
today, I'll deal with it in third reading in the Legislature.
That's not a problem for me. I will raise it at the time.
I have a few more points.
In 1989, the mandate was changed again by the Liberals. The
"mandate is changed to drop italicized phrase from 1982 law, and
to allow gallery to collect art by artists who make, as well have
made, contributions to the development of Canadian art." I find
that as consistent as every other mandate that was changed, in
1982, in 1972 and consistent with 1965.
You people are saying,
"We've got to get back to the original focus," meaning the
original mandate, the agreement that was struck in 1965. I read
to you the original agreement. I'm saying, as Mr Silcox has
said-who was the deputy minister for five years-that we have kept
to the spirit of that mandate. It is my argument. Liberals are
making this argument. Many of the others have made the same
argument. Yet some of you continue to hold the view, for one
reason or another, that no one has kept to the spirit of the 1965
agreement.
I'm telling you that you're
making a political blunder. Your interventions are wrong and
stupid. You're getting into a field of which you know little. In
my view, you're making a mockery of the ministry and a mockery of
culture and the arts with your complete lack of understanding of
what you're doing. You're giving the power to this advisory
committee that has the power for acquisition and deaccessioning,
exhibition and display, which, in the view of one of the
speakers, is a non-professional committee. It is completely
opposed to professional practices elsewhere.
1710
It is not an advisory
committee. You shouldn't say it is an advisory committee if you
mean it to have different power. If they have the power to
acquire, to deaccession, to show exhibits and to display, it's
not an advisory committee. You're giving that group of five-Mr
McMichael and spouse and a few other people nominated by Harris,
who obviously are in tune with your new bill-the power to do
those things which are not advisory.
If it's an advisory
committee it means they're giving advice to the board on what a
professional curator says we should or shouldn't buy. That's not
what this advisory group is doing.
That's why I say to you
it's political stupidity, that you people don't know what you're
doing and you're an embarrassment to the cultural community in
Ontario and Canada and beyond.
You argue that by going
back to the original mandate, which is the one I say you are in
violation of, that somehow you will restore financial stability.
I argue and others argue-in fact, Mr Silcox argued this-that
you're creating financial instability once again. You have no
certainty whatsoever that doing what you're doing-which I tell
you is wrong, and putting that aside even if you disagree-does
not give financial security to the McMichael gallery.
One lady who wrote me, whom
I quoted in the Legislature and named her, said, "The government
claims that it is necessary to pass Bill 112 to solve the
gallery's financial
problems. What financial adviser has suggested that the present
owners and sponsors be dumped in order to hopefully get new ones?
Yet this is the risk that will be exposed with this bill." She's
absolutely right. This is not a political, partisan opinion. This
is an opinion by someone who's gravely concerned about what
you're doing.
Even if she or others
agreed that the mandate you are introducing through this bill
were correct, even if they agreed, they don't believe that what
you're doing will put it on a financial footing that is pleasing
to you. We used to fund the McMichael collection 100%. It was
then 80% under our government. It's now 40% under yours.
Financial institutions are struggling desperately to make up for
that shortfall. Some of them are lucky and doing well in spite of
all the good efforts of the board members and the volunteers and
the donors-in spite of all those efforts. I argue that
governments need to be there and need to fund these cultural
institutions in ways that they're not getting through you. But if
you believe or if you think that somehow you're going to get more
money by doing what you're doing, you're wrong.
Mr Silcox suggested to you
that there is a 30% tax on any of the works that you deaccession
and he argues that would be a cost to you of $1.5 million,
unless, of course, you decide that you're not going to get rid of
the works of art but you're just going to hide them in the
vaults. That's an answer, I suppose. You don't have to sell them;
just hide them. They don't have to be seen, I suppose, and then
you won't have to incur a cost.
I think there are other
legal obligations that you have to the donors and just a moral
obligation that you have to those donors. But we don't know
what's going to happen, because the McMichaels are the ones who
will determine which works of art will be in the vault, will be
deaccessioned, will be displayed. Who knows what else they intend
to do with it? They are the only ones who will decide. That's the
power you're giving them through this bill. I find that
wrong.
You are essentially doing
the same thing as we have in the 1965 agreement. It's the same
thing except you're saying to Mr McMichael that he, his wife and
three other people will have the power to decide who will be
shown, displayed at the McMichael gallery. It's the same mandate
except you now have said, "They are the ones in charge of who
will be deaccessioned, on display, what works of art will be
bought and so on." That's what you're doing.
Interjection.
Mr
Marchese: No, well I'm waiting for you, Ms Elliott, to
speak so that I can rebut. It'll be interesting to hear what you
have to say, given there's so many people who have so much
expertise in this field who have told you the contrary. I'm still
fascinated to think that you might have arguments in disagreement
with them.
I'm profoundly worried by
what you're doing. Many questions have been raised by those who
have presented today. The implications are very political and
they impinge on the arts world in a way that you don't
understand.
You think that Premier
Harris having had lunch or dinner with some friend of Mr
McMichael or indeed Mr McMichael solves the problem. It's
profoundly wrong and dumb. I thought I'd put that on the record
because I've spoken against the entire bill. No amendment can fix
it, because the premise is wrong. So I wanted to put that on the
record and look forward to Ms Elliott's comments.
The Chair:
Any further debate or motion on the floor? Seeing none, I'll put
the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment?
Mr
Marchese: On a recorded vote always, Mr Chair.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Ms Elliott, you will be
reading government motion number 3.
Mrs
Elliott: I just want to be clear. The committee is
looking at the papers that were presented by the clerk that would
be numbered page 3.
The Chair:
Yes, that's correct.
Mrs
Elliott: I move that paragraph 7 of section 1.1 of the
act, as set out in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the
following substituted:
"That there should be an
art advisory committee to advise on matters related to the
composition and display of the collection."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to that?
Mrs
Elliott: What we have done here is added the words
"composition and display." This is simply done to clarify the
role and make it a little more specific for the art advisory
committee.
The Chair:
Further debate?
Mr
Marchese: Could I ask her a question?
The Chair:
You can always ask a question.
Mr
Marchese: What is the relationship of this advisory
committee to the other advisory committee? Do we now have two
different advisory committees?
Mrs
Elliott: This is the same art advisory committee. We are
simply clarifying their role. In the original wording of the bill
we proposed, it said under point 7 that there should be an art
advisory committee to advise on matters related to the
collection. We're proposing an amendment that has more specific
wording in it, that adds words, "to advise on matters related to
the composition and display of the collection."
Mr
Marchese: Just to be clear on this, I'm referring to
section 7 for a second. If I understood her correctly, this
advisory committee-perhaps you can help me, Ms Elliott-is
replacing the other advisory committee?
Mrs
Elliott: No.
Mr Marchese: No. Is that
correct?
Mrs
Elliott: It's the same advisory committee. We're just
altering the wording as to what they would do. Instead of simply
saying, "The art advisory committee will advise on matters
related to the collection," we're saying they advise on matters
related to the composition and display of the collection."
Mr
Marchese: So that is all that they would do now? So that
original advisory committee that had the power to purchase, to
deaccession, to display-it will not have that power any longer.
Is that what you're clarifying for me?
Mrs
Elliott: You have always been under the impression that
somehow the art advisory committee had increased powers. First of
all, this is in the purpose section of the clause. The actual
abilities of the art advisory committee are in subsection 5(2),
"The functions of the art advisory committee are," and there are
five different points there. What we're referring to here is in
the purpose clause of the bill.
Mr
Marchese: OK. Ms Elliott, Mr Chair, further
classifications. In section 8, "The board shall ensure that the
collection reflects the cultural heritage of Canada and is
comprised of art works and objects and related documentary
materials" and it proceeds to say, "other artists who have been
designated by the art advisory committee, under clause 4.1(2)(e)
for their contributions to the development of Canadian art." What
happens to that?
The Chair:
We're not at that section, Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Are you changing that section?
Mrs
Elliott: I don't believe there are-
Mr
Marchese: So that remains. Is that correct?
Mrs
Elliott: No, there are no amendments proposed for
that.
1720
Mr
Marchese: OK. In section 8 there is such an advisory
committee that will determine who shall ensure that the
collection reflects the cultural heritage and is comprised of
works of art and other artists who have been designated by the
art advisory committee. So this art advisory committee will
decide, I argue still, as others have argued, that they have
power to acquire, deaccession, exhibit and display.
Mrs
Elliott: No, that's wrong. You have to go back to what
the powers of the art advisory committee as proposed-I'm sorry,
Mr Chair.
The Chair:
You have the floor. Go ahead.
Mrs
Elliott: If you go back to section 5(2), it says:
"The functions of the art
advisory committee are,
"(a) to make
recommendations to the board with respect to the acquisition of
artworks and objects and related documentary materials for the
collection."
The art advisory committee
has the ability to make recommendations to the board on
acquisitions.
"(b) to make
recommendations to the board with respect to disposal of
artworks" and so on.
"(c) to make
recommendations to the board in respect of temporary exhibits
...
"(d) to make
recommendations to the board in respect of the display ...;
"(e) to designate
artists."
The art advisory committee
has the power to designate and to make recommendations to the
board, but the board always, in this bill proposed, has the final
say to what will be acquired and how the collection will actually
function.
Mr
Marchese: OK. So that art advisory committee has the
power to designate but the board could ultimately say no.
Mrs
Elliott: That's right. That's correct.
Ms Di
Cocco: I see some staff saying no, that's not the case,
so I want the clarification again. My understanding from what I
read with regard to the role of the advisory committee is that it
gives them not only this advisory capacity related specifically
to composition and display of the collections; it still has the
power to designate, because it really does have more than an
advisory capacity. At least that's my interpretation.
I'm hoping that Ms Elliott
is not giving us the wrong impression here. If the board has its
regular governance authority, it means that the board is the one
that in the first place should be appointing an advisory board,
but obviously you're appointing it. Whatever the recommendations
are made by the advisory board, it's crucial that we understand
this, that whatever the advice, recommendations or designation
given by this advisory board, it is only that. If it has more
power than just that, please clarify again. I really do need it
clarified.
Mrs
Elliott: Perhaps I was not clear. I will go back and try
this again. We are not proposing amendments to change the
function of the art advisory committee. In the bill it's proposed
that the art advisory committee will have the ability to make
recommendations to the board with respect to acquisitions, to
make recommendations to the board with respect to disposal, to
make recommendations to the board with respect to temporary
exhibits, to make recommendations to the board with respect to
the display of art. The last subsection, (e), is different. It
says "to designate artists," and so the art advisory committee
will have the ability to designate artists to the board. That's
their ability: acquisition, disposal, exhibit and display are the
decision of the board.
Ms Di
Cocco: Just further to that, the composition of this
advisory committee that you call it is, again, the two
McMichaels-just to reclarify-and they're there in perpetuity, I
guess, because they can designate other individuals to sit on
their behalf, I understand. Is that correct?
Mrs
Elliott: Yes. While they're alive.
Ms Di
Cocco: While they're alive. And then you have two people
appointed by the minister, I presume, or the Lieutenant
Governor.
Mrs
Elliott: We are making a proposal that that be changed.
It was to be by the board, three people to be chosen by the
board.
Ms Di Cocco: By the board. Three
people elected by the board. OK.
In this section here, the
advisory "related to the composition and display of the
collection," that just means exactly what it says. In other
words, however the display is set up, if this advisory board
doesn't like the way a display is set up, they have a say in
this.
Mrs
Elliott: In the bill they have the ability to make
recommendations to the board. But again I turn your attention to
the fact this is in the purpose clause, so this is saying that
the art advisory committee would be able to advise on matters
related to composition and display. It's exactly the same. We
believe it reflects exactly what is already proposed in the body
of the bill.
Ms Di
Cocco: You're going to change the governance as you move
on, you've said. You're going to have three people there who are
going to be appointed by the board. What if the board decides
that they do not agree with what the advisory board has submitted
to them?
Mrs
Elliott: With regard to?
Ms Di
Cocco: Their recommendations and/or their designation
and/or their advice. What if the board as a whole says, "We don't
agree in that direction"?
Mrs
Elliott: According to the body of the bill as proposed,
the board would have the ability to disagree or not to act,
whatever the advisory committee recommends, if they are
recommending on acquisition, disposal, exhibit or display.
Ms Di
Cocco: Or display. But the advisory board has the
ultimate say in the artists, in the designation of the artists.
Is that correct?
Mrs
Elliott: Correct.
Ms Di
Cocco: So the artists who constitute the art heritage of
Canada or whoever are designated as appropriate Canadian artists.
They are the ones who have the final say, not the board.
Mrs
Elliott: Yes. They would designate the artists, the art
advisory committee.
Ms Di
Cocco: Can you clarify why?
Mrs
Elliott: Again, the whole purpose of this bill is
primarily to restore the McMichael collection to the spirit of
the 1965 agreement.
Ms Di
Cocco: I hope you get a good chance to read the audit
from 1980, because the essence of control restored to the
McMichael would be very much in question, as my colleague Mr
Marchese sent around-we have received this audit. I think it's of
grave concern with regard to the ethics in this whole issue of
the role that's being played by the advisory board. I suggest
that you have an opportunity to look at it and, as I said, I've
sent a copy to the minister as well, because it may bring to
question exactly what the advisory board is in its
composition.
Mr
Marchese: I'm suggesting to Mrs Elliott that they have
to review this a bit more carefully. Section 8 says, "The board
shall ensure that the collection reflects the cultural heritage
of Canada and is comprised of artworks and objects and related
documentary material created by or about," and it lists the
names, the original seven plus three others. So remember it
"shall ensure that the collection reflects the cultural heritage
... and is comprised of...." That's the role of the board.
Subsection (b) says, "other artists who have been designated by
the art advisory committee," and it has a few other words, "under
clause 4.1(2)(e) for their contributions to the development of
Canadian art."
Nowhere does it say that
"designates" means "recommends." In all the other clauses it's
"recommends." In that particular clause it says "designates," and
it suggests that they have the power to do that and it is not
subject to the review of the board, as Mrs Elliott says.
Mrs
Elliott: No. I was very clear on that. We went back and
we were very clear on that.
1730
Mr
Marchese: Let me go back to it. You said the board has
the ultimate authority, decision. That's what you said.
The Chair:
No. With the greatest respect, she read the sections and made it
clear I think to all members of the committee that there was a
difference in that last clause.
Mrs
Elliott: Yes.
The Chair:
I'm sorry. I heard her very clearly, Mr Marchese.
Mrs
Elliott: I was very clear on that. I'll say it again if
you want.
Mr
Marchese: Yes, go ahead. Well, depending-
The Chair:
Mr Marchese, I would remind you too that we had agreement that we
would end at 6. I just wanted to draw your attention to the
clock.
Mr
Marchese: That's fine. When it ends, you can-
The Chair:
I would draw your attention to the fact that the House motion on
red tape has given us the time frame, so I want you to know that
if we go over 6 o'clock, you will be losing one of the possible
three days we can hold hearings on that bill.
Mr
Marchese: You're kidding.
The Chair:
No, I'm not kidding.
Mr
Marchese: Could you explain, Mrs Elliott, what you mean
again, because I'm saying "designates" means they have the power
to designate the works of art.
Mrs
Elliott: We agree with you.
Mr
Marchese: Oh, you agree with me.
Mrs
Elliott: That's what we're asking.
Mr
Marchese: Ah, sorry. Obviously I missed something, then,
either with what you answered-is that it?
Ms Di
Cocco: She clarified it for me.
Mr
Marchese: So what did you clarify again? Sorry, I didn't
hear it.
Mrs
Elliott: That part of the bill is not being proposed for
amendment. We are saying that the art advisory committee has-
Mr
Marchese: Yes. I understand what the art advisory
committee-by your suggestion. I understand that. I was worried
about the fact that it has the power to designate artists and
that it's not to be disputed, it's not to be refuted, by the
board or it's not up to challenge and so on. So you agree with
that.
Mrs Elliott: No. It has the
power very clearly to designate-
Mr
Marchese: Right, because when I originally asked you,
you said that the power-
Mrs
Elliott: I'm sorry. I thought I was telling you
accurately and I did go back to that to make sure it was
accurate.
Mr
Marchese: That's good. I'm glad we clarified that for
the record.
The Chair:
Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
Mr
Marchese: Always on a recorded vote.
The Chair:
Yes, that's fine, duly noted.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
DiCocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
The next amendment is a
Liberal motion.
Ms Di
Cocco: In trying to look at this bill and decide
that-this is section 4 I believe, is it not?
The Chair:
The page is numbered 2 in the upper right-hand corner.
Ms Di
Cocco: The motion basically is to move-and I put these
in only to see if there is real discussion on the financial
matters-that paragraph 7 of section 1.1 of the act, as set out in
section 2 of the bill, "There should be an art advisory committee
to advise on matters related to the ... collection," be struck
out. The reason being, of course, to retain the integrity of the
board's position.
The Chair:
Any debate?
Mrs
Elliott: Clearly, Mr Chair, we disagree. We think that
an art advisory committee is essential to keep the spirit of the
original agreement and we will be voting against this
amendment.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. A
recorded vote.
AYES
DiCocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
NAYS
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
The Chair:
That amendment is lost.
Shall section 2, as
amended, carry? Carried.
Section 3: Mrs Elliott.
Mrs
Elliott: I move that subsections 3(1) and (2) of the
act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the
following substituted:
"Composition of board
"3(1) Subject to section
3.1, the board shall consist of up to 23 trustees appointed by
the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
"Number
"(2) The Lieutenant
Governor in Council may from time to time determine the number of
trustees to be appointed.
"Term
"(2.1) A trustee may be
appointed for a term not exceeding three years and may be
reappointed for one or more further terms."
The Chair:
Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
DiCocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 3, as
amended, carry? Carried.
Section 4: Mrs Elliott.
Mrs
Elliott: I move that subsection 4(2) of the act, as set
out in subsection 4(1) of the bill, be struck out and the
following substituted:
"Bylaws
"(2) The board may make
bylaws regulating its proceedings and establishing committees
composed of trustees, employees and volunteers of the corporation
for the control and conduct of its internal affairs.
"Voting
"(2.1) Only trustees may
vote on any matter before a committee of the board."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to the amendment?
Mrs
Elliott: Again, we're reflecting what we heard from
various presenters who came before the committee. We're adding
the word "volunteers" to this section, and we're also indicating
that only trustees can vote at committee meetings. That means,
therefore, that all employees and volunteers can be non-voting
members of the board committee, as desired.
The Chair:
Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 4, as
amended, carry? Section 4, as amended, is carried.
The next amendment will be
page 7.
Mrs Elliott: Section 5:
I move that paragraphs 3
and 4 of subsection 4.1(1) of the act, as set out in section 5 of
the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"3. So long as a person
appointed by Robert McMichael under subsection 3.1(2) or (5) is a
trustee, the person shall be a member of the art advisory
committee and the number of trustees appointed under paragraph 5
shall be reduced accordingly.
"4. So long as a person
appointed by Signe McMichael under subsection 3.1(3) or (4) is a
trustee, the person shall be a member of the art advisory
committee and the number of trustees appointed under paragraph 5
shall be reduced accordingly.
"5. Three trustees
appointed by the board from amongst the trustees appointed under
subsection 3(1)."
The Chair:
All those in favour of the amendment?
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
The amendment is carried.
Next up is page 8.
Mrs
Elliott: Also to section 5.
I move that subsection
4.1(3) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck
out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(3) If any member of the
art advisory committee is unable or unwilling to continue to be a
member of the committee and that condition continues for more
than 30 days, the board may appoint another trustee to fill the
vacancy."
The Chair:
Debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Page 9.
Mrs
Elliott: I move that subsection 4.1(5) of the act, as
set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"Quorum
"(5) A quorum for the
transaction of business is three members of the committee,
whether present in person or represented by proxy exercised by
another trustee on a committee member's behalf.
"Notice
"(6) Notice of the time and
place for the holding of a meeting of the committee shall be
given to every committee member by sending a notice 14 days or
more before the date of the meeting by prepaid mail or personal
delivery to each committee member's latest address as shown on
the records of the corporation.
"Same
"(7) A notice that is
mailed shall be deemed to have been received by the committee
member on the 10th day after mailing.
"Same
"(8) A member of the
committee may permit notices required by subsection (6) to be
delivered by means other than those mentioned in that
subsection."
The Chair:
Any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
The next amendment is
yours, Ms Di Cocco.
Ms Di
Cocco: Again, I'm going to go to the premise of the
minister, suggesting that it is a financial issue that is the
reason this bill was brought forward.
I move that section 4.1 of
the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and
the following be substituted:
"Financial advisory
committee
"4.1 The board shall
establish a financial advisory committee, to evaluate and propose
solutions to fundraising and funding issues which arise from time
to time."
You strike out the advisory
board, as it states, and you suggest that the board, in its
format now, appoint a financial advisory committee, because
nowhere in this bill does it deal with financial issues. All it
does is give more control to the original donors, but nothing
about how we are going to deal with the financial matters that
you are saying are problematic in this institution.
That is my motion. I want
to see if the government has any real intent to deal with
financial matters, if that is really their issue in this
bill.
1740
The Chair:
Further debate?
Mrs
Elliott: Obviously we think the financial situation at
the McMichael collection is very important and have been quite
concerned that the deficit has suddenly grown, within 10 months,
from $300,000 to over $2 million, as one presenter indicated.
In this bill, we have
proposed an art advisory committee in reflection of the true
spirit of the original agreement. There is nothing in this
legislation that would preclude the board, a future board, from
establishing a financial advisory committee for fundraising or
any other issues. However, we do not feel it is appropriate to
put it in the legislation, because the legislation, as we're
designing it, is to reflect the original 1965 agreement, so we
will be voting against the amendment.
Mr
Marchese: In relation to what Mrs Elliot said, she
doesn't really know yet how much the deficit of this McMichael
collection is going to be in the next couple of years. It will
throw it so out of whack. You're going to have so many financial
problems you just won't know why it happened. I'm telling you
now, you're creating a disaster financially and a political
disaster for the arts community in general with this political
blunder of yours.
Mr
Smitherman: I think on this point it's interesting that
the government uses the concerns with respect to financial
mismanagement to justify so much of their action here, and yet
when a practical solution is presented, which says not only
should any legislation deal with a return to the original mandate
but one that actually deals with and speaks to the need for
people to be focusing on financial issues, that's rejected out of
hand. That exposes this for what it is, which is simply a play on
behalf of some people who have given the gift that keeps on
giving and who can't cede to other people, who have also made
extraordinary contributions, the right to be involved. The
government's rejection of this very sensible motion tells much of
the story that's going on here.
The Chair:
Any further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question on Mrs Di
Cocco's motion.
AYES
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
NAYS
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
The Chair:
That amendment is lost.
Shall section 5, as
amended, carry? Section 5, as amended, is carried.
Shall section 6 carry?
Section 6 is carried.
Section 7, Ms Di Cocco.
Ms Di
Cocco: I move that clause 8(b) of the act, as set out in
section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"(b) other artists who have
been designated by the board for their contributions to the
development of Canadian art."
What it does is in actual
fact give to the board its authority to designate other artists
as designated by the board and not just the advisory
committee.
The Chair:
Further debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
AYES
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
NAYS
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
The Chair:
That amendment is lost.
Shall section 7 carry?
Section 7 is carried.
Shall section 8 carry?
Section 8 is carried.
Shall section 9 carry?
Section 9 is carried.
Shall the title of the bill
carry? The title of the bill is carried.
Shall Bill 112, as amended,
carry? Bill 112, as amended, is carried.
Shall I report the bill, as
amended, to the House?
Ms Di
Cocco: Chair, can we have a recorded vote for that?
The Chair:
Absolutely.
Ms Di
Cocco: For the last motion, please.
The Chair:
You're a little late for that. But you can for the last one if
you'd like.
Ms Di
Cocco: OK, for the last one.
The Chair:
A recorded vote. Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the
House?
AYES
Barrett, Dunlop, Elliott,
Munro.
NAYS
Di Cocco, Marchese,
Smitherman.
The Chair:
That is carried.
Thank you to all the
witnesses. Thank you to the committee members. I appreciate the
spirit and tone in which debate was carried out. I will report
the bill to the Legislature.
