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 Geoffrey
Zimmerman
Mr Fred
Burford
Mr Vincent
Tovell
Ms Lucy
Kristan
West Toronto Art
Newspaper
Mr Paul Thompson
Canadian Artists'
Representation Ontario
Ms Jane Martin
Mr Ken
Danby
Society of Inuit Art
Collectors
Ms Jamie Cameron
Mr Michael
Burns
Mr David
Braley
Ms Jean
Eadie
Ms Margaret
McBurney
Canadian Art Museum
Directors Organization
Ms Kate Davis
Royal Canadian
Academy of Arts
Mr Ron Bolt
Mr Doug
Wright
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
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Ms Lorraine Luski, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1531 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.
GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I call the committee to order for the second
day of hearings on Bill 112. Our first presentation this
afternoon will be from Mr Geoffrey Zimmerman, if you'll come
forward to the witness table. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Geoffrey
Zimmerman: Good afternoon, Mr Gilchrist and committee
members. I'd like to thank you all for the opportunity of coming
here this afternoon to make my presentation.
I am a former vice-chair of
the McMichael Canadian Art Collection and, in my submission, Bill
112 is both necessary and extremely important legislation. It's
necessary because the alternative is a continuation of the
chaotic conditions which, until very recently, have prevailed at
the gallery. All of you will know, from the legislative debates
that have taken place thus far, that the deficit this year is, at
the very least, $1.6 million. I say chaotic conditions because
not only is that situation outrageous and untenable, but the
original reports that the board made to the government and to the
minister in March of this year placed the estimated deficit at
$300,000. As the ministry went forward to examine in more detail
what was already an alarming situation, they uncovered evidence
of gross mismanagement at the collection. If Bill 112 is not
passed, in my view, as I say, the alternative is a continuation
of this chaotic and untenable situation.
It's important because of
what it says about the role of fairness and honesty in public
policy. When the McMichaels gave their art collection and their
home to the province of Ontario, it was agreed that the character
of the collection, as established by them, would be maintained in
perpetuity. The language of the 1965 agreement was unequivocal on
this point. Over the next 17 years, the McMichaels, together with
a small advisory committee, enhanced the collection with works by
members of the Group of Seven who were not named in the original
agreement. Those members were Frank Johnston, Edwin Holgate and
Lionel FitzGerald. They also enhanced the collection with a very
small group of their contemporaries. These included Thoreau
MacDonald, son of J.H. MacDonald; James Morrice; and Clarence
Gagnon, who of course produced the fabulous Maria Chapdelaine
collection which was given to the collection in its entirety.
It was in this context that
the phrase "and other artists who have made a contribution to the
development of Canadian art" was interpreted. That phrase, which
was incorporated in the original agreement, was absolutely
essential to be understood in the context of what went before,
and what went before were the names of 10 artists: six members of
the original Group of Seven; one later member, that was A.J.
Casson; and three others, Tom Thomson, David Milne and Emily
Carr. They defined what "other artists" were to be interpreted
as.
All of this changed when Mr
McMichael stepped down as director in 1982. All of a sudden, the
McMichaels' vision, which until that time had stood the test of
time, was deemed irrelevant, replaced with a corporate view of
what the public should see. During my tenure on the board, the
results of this departure from the successful formula created by
the McMichaels were spectacularly apparent. Attendance plummeted,
donations of artwork vanished and corporate giving dried up.
There were apparently no principles to guide acquisition. The
only two criteria, it seemed, for acquiring art were: was the
artist a Canadian and did his work fit within the parameters of
an available government grant?
The board meetings I attended
were controlled from start to finish by gallery management, who
were permitted to remain and participate in these meetings. In my
view, the boards that I attended were dysfunctional to say the
least. They had absolutely no control over the affairs of the
gallery, and that's manifestly evident in what I said before
about their lack of knowledge of the true state of affairs at the
collection as recently as March of this year.
The board's failure to assert
control over management led directly to this financial disaster.
Bill 112, if passed, will correct these historical wrongs and
restore to the McMichaels
and to the people of Ontario nothing more than what they
bargained for. More importantly, it says that honesty and
fairness are cherished principles of public policy in Ontario.
Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Zimmerman. That allows us about four minutes for
questioning. This rotation will be for the Liberals.
Ms Caroline Di Cocco
(Sarnia-Lambton): When you made a suggestion about "gave
the collection," what is your description of that? What do you
mean by "gave the collection"?
Mr
Zimmerman: Ms Di Cocco, the gift of the collection was
given on the understanding and the express agreement with the
province of Ontario that certain things would be respected. First
and foremost, the character of the collection would be respected.
Second, the essential role of the McMichaels in developing and
expanding the collection was expressly agreed to by the province
in that 1965 agreement.
Ms Di Cocco:
When I reviewed this whole issue and went back to the history,
one of the things I found amazing was that in 1982, I believe,
the McMichaels signed an agreement that gave them a different
role and they signed it with a counsel, with a lawyer. They knew
what they were signing when they signed an agreement stating that
they were going to now play only an advisory role.
I'd like you to know that
they were also given $815,000 as tax receipts. They were able to
stay in the house from 1965 to 1982 for free. They were provided
with a car and a housekeeper by the province. They were given a
salary totalling $400,000 for four years after they stepped down
in 1982 at that time, and again, that same year the government
purchased a house for them, $300,000.
I have a report here from the
McMichael Canadian Art Collection, 1996-97. When it comes to this
gross mismanagement, it states here that there was a court
challenge that was filed in 1996 and throughout that year both
the board and the management found that during this controversy
there was a great deal of insecurity created because the
McMichaels took the gallery and the province of Ontario to court
in trying to reassess their role, if you want to call it that, in
having control of what the collection was to be. They lost that
challenge at the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1997, and it wasn't
even heard at the Supreme Court of Canada. They didn't want to
hear it.
First of all, you talk about
the "honesty" of an agreement. What about this agreement of 1982?
What about the court challenge of 1997 that they lost? Now you
talk about gross mismanagement. What about the financial issue
created by the controversy of wanting control?
Mr
Zimmerman: Ms Di Cocco, I have to tell you that the
issue of the court challenge is, in my view, a red herring. The
decline into obscurity of the collection had begun before 1996.
It began in 1989 when the Liberal government of David Peterson
passed legislation expanding the size of the board from nine
members to 17 members, diluting the McMichaels's influence on the
board by about one-half and allowing for and legitimizing what
had been going on for at least seven years in 1989, the
collection of works that had nothing to do with the original
mandate of the collection-nothing whatsoever.
1540
As to your allegations about
the McMichaels and how they profited from this transaction, the
McMichaels made an agreement. Included in that agreement were a
number of features. One of them was that they were to retain a
life tenancy in their home; nothing that the government of the
day felt was unreasonable. It was their home. The McMichaels, at
their own expense in 1966, dramatically expanded the size of
their home after they had given it to the government of Ontario.
They spent their own money to build themselves an apartment and
create additional gallery space. They were never reimbursed for
that, ma'am.
When they left the premises
in 1982, the government of Ontario simply replaced that which
they had been guaranteed for life under the agreement: a home, a
roof over their head. Incidentally, they also bargained for two
burial plots, one for each of them, so they could be buried on
the premises. That, thankfully, escaped the ravages of the
Peterson legislation.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Zimmerman. With that, our time has expired, but I
thank you very much for bringing your experiences before us here
today.
FRED BURFORD
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Mr Fred Burford. Good
afternoon, Mr Burford.
Mr Fred
Burford: Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr
Gilchrist and other members of the committee. I certainly
appreciate the opportunity to give a new perspective in support
of Bill 112. This is the perspective of an educator, which was my
career, as a mathematics teacher who loved art. That was the
first half of the career. The second half was as principal of two
schools in North York. Both of those schools had very fine art
departments. This perspective is based on the experience I had
when I was principal at Northview Heights Secondary School. This
was in the early 1970s, so you can try to fit that into the dates
you've heard about so far.
I was invited to join a field
trip for grade 10 art students to the McMichael gallery. Many of
these students were new to Canada. They came from a variety of
countries. These 15-year-olds were enthralled upon viewing this
rustic building set in such beautiful natural surroundings. The
best part of their experience, though, came when their guide,
Eileen Wykes, discussed the artistic backgrounds of the artists
and their work as it appeared in different parts of the gallery.
They were especially impressed by the stories about the Group of
Seven.
What really impressed me was
how this vibrant work of the Group of Seven, aboriginal Canadian
artists and other Canadian artists gave them the vision of their
new country, Canada. At present, usually we do not do a good
job of instilling pride in
our province and our country in young people. Here I saw it
actually happening through the visit to the McMichael gallery.
After the field trip was over, I would see some of these students
in the halls of Northview Heights between classes and they would
always come up and say how wonderful their experience had
been.
Bill 112 reconstitutes the
selection committee of five people, Robert and Signe McMichael
included. Consequently, it ensures that the selection of new
works will be of the same high quality that captivated these
young art students. I recommend that Bill 112 be passed in its
third reading.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Burford. You've afforded us about four minutes
again. This time the rotation will be for the NPD, Mr
Marchese.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, Mr Burford. I have a
couple of questions that I want to ask you, because the
government makes two claims: first, that we have strayed away, or
the McMichael has, from the original mandate; and second, that we
have a deficit and therefore we need Bill 112 to fix that
problem.
My first question is on the
mandate. The mandate says that it would include the Group of
Seven plus others designated by the advisory committee "who have
made contributions to the development of Canadian art." Professor
Zemans said in the committee on Monday that, given that mandate,
we haven't strayed away from the original mandate and the
curators have made decisions based on what they thought was
appropriate based on the mandate, which gives us the kinds of
works of art that we have had over the years. I agree with that
interpretation Professor Zemans and others have made, that we
look at the original mandate and it appears that curators have
the power to be able to determine what they see is a contribution
to the development of Canadian art. Do you think they strayed
away?
Mr Burford:
My response to that is based on my experience seeing the great
art galleries of the world-the Tate Museum in London, the part of
the Wallace collection in London that is devoted to art and the
famed art galleries in Amsterdam and Paris. As you view the work
there, there is a certain high quality that you see.
When I returned to the
McMichael gallery-and I've been back several times over the
years, but my most recent visit was just several years ago-the
quality was not there uniformly.
Mr Marchese:
I understand your view, Mr Burford. Let me continue with the
question. This issue of quality is disputed by many, I understand
that, including yourself. I'm not an expert, able to dispute one
version of quality versus the other. I'm focusing on the original
mandate. My opinion is that they haven't strayed at all. For
example, Inuit artists and aboriginal artists, First Nations
people, were not included in that original mandate, it seems, but
they fall within the "who have made contributions to the
development of Canadian art." My understanding is that Mr
McMichael supported that and that came much later and other
people came much later. So my view is that they haven't strayed
away.
I understand your view of
quality, which I'm not in a position to dispute one way or the
other, but have they moved away from the original mandate? That's
my point. That's the argument they made. I'm saying they haven't.
Are you saying they have or they haven't, based on what I read to
you?
Mr Burford:
I guess the control of whether they have was based on the
selection committee. The selection committee changed, and the
makeup of it was such that there was not the same quality control
based on experience and knowledge that there was at one time. It
was during that period-
Mr Marchese:
Mr Burford, in 1972-
Mr Burford:
I would like to have an opportunity to-
The Chair:
Can you do it in 30 seconds?
Mr Marchese:
In 1972, this is the composition: a board of trustees, 9 members,
runs the gallery; the McMichaels are trustees for life; Mr
McMichael is named director and is on salary. So in 1972 he's
still there; he's part of the decision-making process. In 1982,
McMichael loses the director's position, is named founder
director emeritus pursuant to the 1980 deal, and so on. The
McMichaels have been there forever. They've always been there to
be part of those decisions.
Mr Burford:
But the selection committee changed. They became two of, I
believe, eight.
Mr Marchese:
So we've just got to get rid of them all and just get back to the
old-
Mr Burford:
No, in a selection committee of five, two people can't outvote
the other three.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Burford, for bringing your perspective
before us today.
1550
VINCENT TOVELL
The Chair:
Our next presentation is from Mr Vincent Tovell. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Vincent
Tovell: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the
committee. I'm here speaking for myself. I'm still a trustee of
the McMichael collection, in my second term as a voting member.
Before that I was a councillor without a vote.
The issue before you is
fundamentally a curatorial matter: the nature of this collection
and the right ways of managing it for its owners, the people of
Ontario. It has not been a private, personal collection since
1965, and it must not be subject to the domination of any donors,
past or future.
I've sat on the acquisition
committee for almost a decade now, and I chaired it interim. Some
knowledgeable trustees sit on that committee with art historians,
artists-two at present. The McMichaels are there as members. So
is the director, the CEO, with a vote like the rest.
The curators-our specialists,
professional experts-are there without a vote to provide
carefully prepared backgrounders and justifications for the works on
offer. We see the works-paintings, works on paper, sculptures,
important archival material-and we discuss them, pro and con, in
the light of our legislated mandate. It's lively, you can be
quite sure.
Most of these works are
donations. If accepted by the committee, they are ultimately
taken to the board. A donor may apply for a federal tax receipt
according to formally established procedures. Our purchase funds
are severely limited: a percentage of shop profits, some
occasional federal public money. Corporate and private names are
sometimes applicable and are approached.
The committee's report,
totalling the pros and cons, then goes to the board with
documents and justifications, and the discussion continues with
curators present. The board votes, and this is the time for
personal judgment. All this procedure is in accordance with good
and accepted Canadian practice in public museums.
I won't take time, which I
haven't got, to comment on some of the false impressions that one
way or another have been in the air about the nature of the
collection, which you're free to go and see, and the origin and
decision-making process connected with particular works which may
have been controversial. What I want to stress is the
professional process involving all the key trustees and the
professional players: the directors, the CEO, curators,
conservators and the registrar. As trustees and committee
members, we must be careful to distinguish between our personal
likes or dislikes and the needs of the collection as a whole.
Does a work fit in? Why? We must always be aware of our
legislated mandate, knowledgeable about the collection as a whole
and about Canadian art history, and we must have all our
stakeholders in mind.
In all this, the professional
director, the CEO, is central. Selected by the board-though not
in this draft bill-and serving it day to day, she or he is the
voice of the institution in-house, in Canada and increasingly
internationally. This institution is a major tourist attraction
and it's on the Internet and now known all over the world.
This legislation, Bill 112,
as it stands will seriously and sadly misdirect the institution
for years. It was envisaged in a rear-view mirror. It is
injudicious. Where is the common sense in it?
You've heard and you can read
the carefully considered warnings from some of the best
professional minds in the country: the CMA, the OMA, OAG and
others. Please listen. Respect their long, wide experience, their
record of work in the public interest.
I ask you as legislators to
look five or 10 years ahead. You hold-we all do-a trust of great
value and promise. We must think now, not only of the various
stakeholders today but of the next generations. May I suggest,
take the boiling pot off the stove before it overflows and major
damage is done.
This bill has come to you
without proper and appropriate prior dialogue with the
experienced people, the dedicated, the professionals and the
committed volunteers who have worked so long and hard for this
institution. Stop, look and listen, I urge you. Bill 112 should
be reconsidered.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. This time the questioning will be from the
government. You've got about three minutes, Ms Elliott.
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): I'm going to begin by thanking you
very much for your contributions on the board. That is truly
appreciated by the province of Ontario and its citizens.
In listening to your remarks
carefully, I think we have a difference of opinion as to what is
at the heart of the matter here. In your opening remarks you
indicated you believe it's a curatorial matter. We just heard
from a former board chair who essentially said he thought that at
the heart of this was not only mismanagement but the role of
fairness and honesty in public policy. That's where I think we
have a difference of opinion.
I'll quote to you from the
legislation in 1972: "The board shall ensure that artworks and
objects acquired from time to time as part of the collection are
not inconsistent with the general character of the collection at
the time of such acquisitions." That was referring directly to
the 1965 agreement, which was the beginning of the relationship
with the province and establishment of the collection.
In 1989, this changed
dramatically and the key words that I think were dropped and are
important for us to recognize are "consistent with." Surely that
is what this is all about. As the collection has evolved over the
years, through decisions of various people-curators, board
members and so on-it has become, in the view of many,
inconsistent with the original spirit of the gift and of the
collection.
Would you like to elaborate
on that?
Mr Tovell:
Quite clearly, I echo the view which has been expressed publicly
by many people, and is the view of the current board, that we
have always been attentive to the mandate as legislated.
Mrs Elliott:
In 1989?
Mr Tovell:
1989 is the current legislation.
Mrs Elliott:
The mandate that was changed by the Liberal government in 1989
that dropped "consistent with"?
Mr Tovell:
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Mrs Elliott:
The mandate was changed in 1989, the most recent piece of
legislation. "Consistent with" was dropped.
Mr Tovell:
All I can say, Mrs Elliott, is that this gets into the area of
opinion. I can only tell you I have served under the 1989
legislation. I know I have spent an uncounted number of hours
arguing, and I sat through all the two stages of the court
hearings and heard these arguments thrashed out, and subsequent
arguments after that.
I think I'm as familiar as
anybody can be with the pros and cons of the arguments, legal or
otherwise. What I am saying is that we have honestly tried to
keep the Group of Seven at the centre. That's never changed.
The developments of their contemporaries and later
artists-even Casson, after all, lived far into the later part of
the century-has been consistent with both the spirit and, in my
view, the nature of the original agreement. The contract was an
agreement; it was not legislation. It's critical to remember that
the legislation process began in the 1970s. This was part of a
continuing public discussion. None of it is secret, that I know
about, and that is why I refer again to the lack of dialogue this
time. We, as a board, had none with the minister. We were simply
told the morning of her presenting it to the Legislature.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Tovell. We appreciate your taking the
time to come before us here today.
1600
LUCY KRISTAN
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by Ms Lucy Kristan. Good afternoon
and welcome to the committee.
Ms Lucy
Kristan: My name is Lucy Kristan and I am a resident of
Caledon and live approximately 25 minutes away from the McMichael
gallery. I have been a member of the board of governors of
Sheridan College and adviser to the board of directors of
TVOntario, as well as an area councillor for the town of Caledon.
I can appreciate the difficulties involved in running a public
institution during difficult fiscal times.
I was a member of the
McMichael gallery. I ended my membership the day that I visited
the gallery and discovered that the large hand-carved, wooden
bench that had been located in the First Nations and western
Canadian gallery for as long as I can remember had been removed
by management. This was the last of numerous changes made by the
gallery that went against what I felt the collection was all
about. The McMichael collection was the world's best display of
the Group of Seven and their contemporaries, with their special
interpretation of the Canadian landscape.
As a collector of old and
rare books, I've reviewed many of the catalogues that other
museums and galleries have printed when the McMichael collection
was on tour throughout the world. Without fail, each show was
developed with the same look and feel as the gallery had had and
they wanted examples of the membership of the Group of Seven.
Starting with the 50th anniversary at the National Gallery to
major showings in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, London, Leningrad
and Moscow, there have also been a number of showings in the
United States, with one currently showing at the Society of the
Americas in New York City. I wonder how many people have visited
Canada because of these tours of the original collection.
I am here today because I
personally don't understand why a collection that had a clear,
defined scope and focus is trying to become all things to all
people. If I wanted to see the best of impressionist art I would
go to the Barnes Foundation, not to the Bata Shoe Museum. I have
always thought the McMichael collection was about the Group of
Seven and their contemporaries, not about every type of art or
artist in Canada. For broader examples of Canadian art, I could
go to the AGO or the National Gallery of Canada. As long as the
McMichael collection tries to look and feel just like all the
other galleries in the province, it will continue to weaken. The
gallery's rotating shows will always contribute with fresh and
new ideas, but this should not affect the primary mandate of the
collection.
Premier John Robarts and
the Ontario government signed an agreement which defined the
start of the new collection. David Peterson changed the agreement
signed by the government and Robert and Signe McMichael. How was
the 1989 legislation passed without the input of the McMichaels
themselves? Did the government allow public hearings or debate?
This current legislation serves to correct, not change, the
mandate of the gallery.
The recent articles in the
media against Bill 112 focused on the specific statements of the
original agreement that define what the collection should include
outside the specific members of the Group of Seven. I don't
believe there should be any disagreement about the focus of the
collection. Robert McMichael can speak eloquently of his
understanding of the original agreement. As well, Richard Rohmer
should be contacted in order for you to understand the original
intent of the act on behalf of the government. If there is any
question, ask the two men directly involved in the creation of
the original agreement. I'm sure that both of them would be
pleased to answer your question.
I expect those who are
against Bill 112 will discuss the size and the scope to which the
gallery has expanded. The question I would ask is, as the years
have passed since the McMichaels were directly involved with the
collection, how many dollars have been spent and how has this
translated into revenues? If the expanded mandate of the gallery
had been successful, we would all have to reconsider this
amending legislation, but to my understanding, revenues,
membership and visitors are all down. Above all else, I'm sure
the McMichaels and the taxpayers of Ontario want a successful,
viable collection so it will last for many generations.
The last management team
implemented the changes they believed were necessary. The results
of those changes are clear: lost membership, reduced visits, loss
of revenue so great that the entire collection is now in debt.
The gallery will not be able to succeed, regardless of the
mandate, unless the collection returns to doing what it does
best. I willingly accept that the world is in constant change. I
can agree that there are alternative ways of running an
organization such as the McMichael collection, but Webster's
dictionary defines a collection as "things brought together by
choice." Clearly, the membership of the collection and the
regular visitors no longer agree with the choices, and it's time
to change the direction back.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, and that leaves us about three minutes for
questions. This time the rotation will be to the Liberals.
Ms Di Cocco: I thank you for your
submission. You're talking again of the curatorial kind of
decision that has been made as it evolved since 1965. That was
changed because of the way that it was governed.
Do you know about the
findings in 1997 from the Court of Appeal? This whole issue of
whether the collection should be returned to its 1965
interpretation that the McMichaels felt was being eroded-did you
see the findings of that court?
Ms
Kristan: To my understanding, the results of the finding
were that the Court of Appeal could not rule against the 1989
legislation.
Ms Di
Cocco: The 1989 act stated, "The board shall ensure that
the focus of the collection is the works of art created by
Indian, Inuit and Metis artists, the artists of the Group of
Seven and their contemporaries and other artists who have made or
make a contribution to the development of Canadian art."
What is at issue here is
what that interpretation is, who is going to interpret what is
going to be hung up on the walls. That's what's at issue with
this legislation.
Ms
Kristan: That's correct.
Ms Di
Cocco: Do you believe that government should have a
direct role in legislating what that interpretive aspect should
be?
Ms
Kristan: I think the government should make sure that a
quality gallery such as the McMichael collection be the world's
best at something. It has gone from being the world's best to
being bankrupt, and it is the government's responsibility as
representatives of the taxpayers to make sure that this public
institution is not running at a deficit.
Ms Di
Cocco: "This public institution"-I'm glad you said that,
because it is a public institution, and what we're doing is
attempting to revert to the interpretation of two individuals. I
believe that's really what the intent here is.
Ms
Kristan: There are no other two individuals who have
given the province of Ontario so much in a gallery. This
collection would never be put together today, never.
Ms Di
Cocco: There have been other donors. One donor has
contributed $1.6 million.
Ms
Kristan: Yes, and that's what Lawren Harris today is
running. Lawren Harris and Emily Carr are now selling at over $1
million a piece. This province would never be able to put this
gallery together.
Ms Di
Cocco: The Gardiner museum-I don't know if you're aware
of this-
Ms
Kristan: I'm aware of Mr Gardiner. He lived up the road
from me.
Ms Di
Cocco: OK, and do you realize the value of his
contribution to the province?
Ms
Kristan: Yes.
Ms Di
Cocco: And his endowment that he left with his gift,
bequeathed it in a way that I would say definitely was a gift?
There's an interpretation of "gift" here I think that we're
losing in this vein.
Ms
Kristan: As I said, I'm a collector of old books, and in
the 1966 copy of the Canadian-I can't actually tell you what the
Canadian was; it was a Telegram-type newspaper, a public
newspaper-it says very clearly that the only condition was that
the collection be interpreted long past the government of John
Robarts.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Kristan. I appreciate you coming before
us here today.
1610
WEST TORONTO ART NEWSPAPER
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the West Toronto Art
Newspaper, Paul Thompson. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Paul
Thompson: Thank you, Mr Chairman and honourable members
and other visitors. My name is Paul Thompson, editor of West
Toronto Art Newspaper, representing their views and opinions. I'm
pleased to share the concerns and recommendations by our staff
and sponsors of West Toronto Art Newspaper relating to Bill
112.
This community publication,
now entering its second year, was formed for the specific purpose
of promoting public awareness of art and cultural interest in
Toronto's west-end neighbourhoods, and the primary objective of
our publication is to focus on emerging or developing artists,
and/or educational facilities in the aforementioned
communities.
Because two distinct
procedures were employed in determining the content of this
report, we included two separate reports. The first lists the
considered opinions of the editor and publisher of West Toronto
Art and the second report provides a summary of reactions and
opinions from associates and sponsors of West Toronto Art. Herein
are the views and recommendations of the editor and publisher of
West Toronto Art.
Prior to the publicity
resulting from Bill 112, we were unaware of any overwhelming
urgency or public controversy that would or should precipitate
legislative solutions. In short, there appears to be no
compelling reason for the Ontario government to proceed with such
drastic interventions. Similarly, the current government has not
been perceived as vociferous advocates of the arts community in
this province, and inasmuch as Bill 112 invests enormous, if not
inordinate, control and responsibilities in the hands of the
government, the modus of the government could be construed as
suspicious. In particular I note that-and I may be confused on
this-in terms of the repeal of the minister's control on the
third anniversary, it's confusing to me whether, if the gallery
doesn't conform to the wishes of the government, that role will
be extended indefinitely. Finally, it is our contention that
creative decisions regarding the arts are best served by a body
or a process which is independent from government control.
Our clear recommendation is
that should the current powers fail to achieve the desired
outcome without reverting to legislative solution, the government
would be wise to provide a more detailed rationale to justify the
furtherance of Bill 112.
Should Bill 112 proceed, we
would propose the following-actually we concur with the purpose
of Bill 112, except for
the matters relating to the proposed changes in the corporation
structure. We also concur with the lifetime appointments of the
McMichael family, or their surrogates. But we do oppose the role
of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate the position
of chair and vice-chair. We question also the composition of the
art advisory committee, given the reality that four of the five
positions of the committee are predetermined by conditions of the
amendment. This, in fact, limits the democratic selection of the
board to one member. Further limitations to that selection are
imposed by conditions as set out in section 4, and that's the
issue of the approval of the minister.
To encourage greater
vitality in exploring the future of the McMichael collection, we
propose the following recommendations: first, the positions of
chair and vice-chair be selected by those board members appointed
by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; second, the board appoints
three members to the art advisory committee from its own members,
in addition to the chair, vice-chair and lifetime members or
their surrogates; third, that the art advisory committee be
empowered to nominate two additional members who are not
trustees, subject to the ratification of the board; and finally,
that all appointments by the board are binding and not subject to
the veto of the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council.
On the second report, I
give you the reactions of the associates and sponsors of West
Toronto Art. I think the committee will be pleased, as are
visitors, to hear that, without exception, all those answering
our informal questions hold the McMichael art gallery in very
high regard. "Historically and spiritually important," "an
incomparable tribute to Canadian art" and "aesthetically
unmatched" were just some of the reverent descriptions that we
received.
The most common dynamic in
our appeal for input on Bill 112 was the apparent lack of public
information. This led often to confusion and/or a concern over
the government's need to intervene. Four respondents proposed the
induction of other artists not named in Bill 112 but generally
limited to the genre inspired by the Group of Seven. Three
respondents expressed specific objections to recent acquisitions,
judging them to be inappropriate to the original intent of the
McMichael gallery. Two respondents found life-term appointments
alone to be unusual, and the ability for two trustees to appoint
their own replacements to be quite extraordinary. Two respondents
spoke strongly in favour of restoring the mandate to its original
vision, and were unconcerned about the proposed methods to
achieve this. Two respondents strenuously opposed both the
implicit limits imposed by the new mandate and the increased role
of government, arguing that artistic decisions are best served
when the government remains at arm's length. Furthermore, art is
an evolutionary process that must move forward and not
backwards.
All the remaining
respondents, and that was 22 in addition to those I mentioned,
offered no serious objections to the mandate as described in
section 8, basically a restoration, except they wanted to see the
inclusion or the exploration of new artists enthusiastically
pursued. Most respondents expressed apprehension in varying
degrees as to the possible ramifications of the increased role of
the government; not a single respondent was indifferent.
The overriding attitude
resulting from our request for feedback from the general
readership is: although the majority opinion favours a return to
the more limited scope and vision reflected by the original Group
of Seven, our readers would prefer a resolution of this debate
without major alterations to the existing legislation.
Let me offer a related
comparison: few would deny the Ontario government has a
prerogative and responsibility to set guidelines for developing
the curriculum of history studies in our Ontario schools, but no
one would expect the government to delete a chapter from an
approved text or to mandate the inclusion of the government
party's political platform in the classroom studies. Similarly,
one would not expect government officials to be directly or
indirectly empowered to determine the artistic merits of a
particular acquisition or group of exhibits.
Finally, it's our fervent
hope that decisions regarding the current situation at the
corporation, as well as the long-term future of the McMichael art
gallery, be concluded with the least possible intrusion from the
government of Ontario. Hence, we oppose Bill 112 in its present
form.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. Mr Marchese, we have about a minute and a
half in this round.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Thompson, just a couple of quick comments.
I happen to think that what this government is doing is nuts, and
it's more than that; it's dangerous, in fact. The claim they make
is that we've strayed away-I say "we" because I'm in support of
what has been going on for the 35 years or so-from the original
mandate, and that the deficit somehow would be corrected if we
fix the mandate and go back to the presumed original mandate. I
think they're indefensible; I think they're wrong. The mandate
that we read out earlier, and you must have heard it, that speaks
about the Group of Seven plus those who have made a contribution
to the development of Canadian art-it means it's open-ended. It
means it includes many artists other than the Group of Seven. The
1989 mandate says that it will include the gallery to collect art
by artists who make, as well as have made, contributions to the
development of Canadian art. That's 1989, when these bad guys
were in. It's the same thing; it's the same kind of mandate. Do
you not agree?
Mr
Thompson: I'll answer your first question.
Mr
Marchese: That they're nuts?
Mr
Thompson: I'm alarmed: if the deficit or financial
management is the priority here, then why isn't it a financial
advisory committee and not an art advisory committee? Secondly, I
think it's very important that in the words "made and making a
contribution," they have eliminated "making," therefore
retreating somehow to the past, eliminating the decision. I don't
consider myself a qualified art critic, but I am a qualified art
observer, as all of you
are, and so is my seven-year-old granddaughter, but let the
people in the know make the decision, not government
officials.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments today and taking
the time to come before the committee, Mr Thompson.
Mr
Thompson: I'll leave these copies over here.
The Chair:
Certainly. The clerk will distribute them.
1620
CANADIAN ARTISTS' REPRESENTATION ONTARIO
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Artists'
Representation Ontario.
Ms Jane
Martin: I have 30 copies of my text, which are now being
given to the clerk.
The Chair:
Thank you. Perhaps you would be kind enough to introduce yourself
for the purpose of Hansard.
Ms Martin:
My name is Jane Martin. I am a senior Canadian artist whose work
is in public collections all the way from the Art Gallery of
Greater Victoria to the Memorial Art Gallery in St John's,
Newfoundland, and many Ontario galleries, including the National
Gallery, in between. I have for 30 years been closely involved
with Canadian Artists' Representation Ontario, le Front des
artistes canadiens de l'Ontario, which I will refer to as CARfac.
With me is Barbara Anderson-Huget, our executive director.
We, Ontario's visual
artists, join CARfac in order to collectively establish and
protect our economic, professional and moral rights. It is these
rights which we feel will be jeopardized by Bill 112. Therefore
we are respectfully asking that this committee of the Ontario
Legislature recommend to the government of Ontario that it
withdraw Bill 112 in its entirety.
I realize that it is the
view of the government that there is another set of rights
involved, that is, the rights of the initial donor of the 200
artworks. I find it odd, given the tax incentives to donations by
which the donation is less a gift than an exchange for generous
tax credits, that the word "donor" is not reserved for us, the
taxpayers of Ontario. Even more than in most cases, the McMichael
gallery can be viewed as the property of the people of Ontario.
The 200 donated artworks grew to a collection of 6,000 largely at
our expense. The land, the building and the other assets also
grew hugely thanks to the generosity of the people of Ontario.
The original donor, unless I have a warped understanding of the
word "gift," has no such claims to ownership. Anyway, isn't the
true gift the anonymous gift, the one which is not conditional on
thanks, let alone decades-long strings?
Rather than devoting this
rather disproportionate amount of parliamentary time to tailoring
a law to an individual who has long since been handsomely thanked
and memorialized, I think it more proper for the government to
attend to the artists and other taxpayers. How do they wish the
McMichael to be run? Well, not by the little boy at the birthday
party who hands you your beribboned gift but refuses to let go of
the package, even if it means tearing the present to shreds, and
not by the government either.
"Arm's length" is a
long-established principle guiding the relationship between
mature and corruption-free democratic governments and art
institutions. We elect you MPPs to do better and bigger things
than micromanage our cultural institutions. We expect directors
and curators to do that. Because good artists tend to break new
ground rather than stroke the status quo, it is particularly
important that choices concerning the public acquisition and
funding of contemporary art be singularly free of political
interference. I would ask the honourable members to remember
governments which ignored the arm's-length principle. Think of
the Red Guard or Stalinesque art. I know these are not models you
wish to emulate, yet this would be the direction you would be
moving in if you usurp the power of the board and professional
staff of the McMichael.
In addition to the
repudiation of public support for the work of the province's
living artists and the dangers to their professionalism of any
eroding of the arm's-length principle, there will be economic
consequences to this bill. By far the largest number of Canadian
artists, and nearly half of CARfac National's members, live in
Ontario. The art market in Ontario is pitifully small and very
fragile. Our members depend on sales to institutions like the
McMichael and to a tiny band of private buyers. If the
government, by this bill, removes one important institutional
buyer and causes 3,000 artworks to be de-accessioned, it will
flood the market, drive down prices, reduce sales and cause real
economic harm to artists. There may also be damage to the
reputations of artists whose work is de-accessioned.
I believe that when all
this is considered, it will reflect much better on this
government to direct its energy to opening up opportunities to
the provinces' artists, providing more funding, more exhibition
venues, more acquisitions. Culture and content are hot issues
now. You should be seen as part of the future, not caught picking
at the scars of some long-ago hurt.
The members of the Group of
Seven were once contemporary artists. They annoyed governments,
collectors and critics alike, just as any leading-edge artist
does. They exhilarated in their unique voices and the shock of
the new. If the government of Canada back then had done to the
National Gallery what this government is proposing to do to the
McMichael, past National Gallery directors Eric Brown and
subsequently H.O. McCurry would have been pressured or
embarrassed into resigning, rather than amassing the wonderful
collection of works by the alive and kicking Group of Seven. It
is by trusting curators to collect the best contemporary art
being produced in the country that a government, even an
uncomprehending one, best supports the creation of contemporary
art by the living artists. Ontario's artists are the heirs, not
to the style of the Group of Seven, but to their spirit of
innovation and courage. You keep the group alive by allowing
their works to be seen in relation to that of their living peers. Their peers are
the innovators, not the imitators. If you want to seal the seven
off from their inheritors, you might as well bury their works
with them. If you want them to live forever, you must involve
them in a dialogue with the present.
I wish to end with the
words of Sigmund Freud, not a Canadian, but-when Freud was too
ill with cancer to seek out at sales and auctions objects for his
very outstanding collection of Egyptian antiquities, a collection
which had given him immense joy throughout his life, he lost
interest in his beloved art. When asked by his daughter why his
collection no longer gave him pleasure, Freud replied, "A
collection which is not being added to is a dead collection."
The Chair:
That gives us about two minutes for questions. This time the
rotation will be the government, Ms Munro.
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): Thank you very much for coming here today
to give us your point of view. I wanted to ask you two questions.
One is related to the issue of de-accessioning, because a number
of people have raised this. Given your particular professional
background, I thought you were the right person to ask the
question to. Is it not your understanding that galleries
generally would have-I don't mean private galleries but public
galleries-more in their possession than they would have on
display?
Ms Martin:
Of course, but when it's not on display, it's very well cared for
in vaults, where it's protected.
Mrs Munro:
Yes, that was what I understood. My question simply came from the
notion that I didn't think anyone would see flooding the market
as an appropriate thing to do, as you suggest. In fact, the
chair, the person who has taken that responsibility, was asked
that question and specifically did say that it would be foolish
to think that would be an appropriate course of action. My second
question has to do with-
Ms Martin:
I'm not sure what the question was. What do I think about
de-accessioning?
Mrs Munro:
No, the question that it would be appropriate to have in the
vaults that you describe more than just what would be on display
at any given time.
Ms Martin:
But in the vaults, is it there waiting to go because they've been
told they have to sell it? What will it be doing in the vaults?
Hiding it from-
Mrs Munro:
We have the word of the chair, as I just gave you, that he sees
that as a foolish suggestion. In fact he says, "One would have to
be foolish to sell a lot of art at one time," when the market
would be devalued. My question to you was simply to ask you if it
would be common practice to have more than one has on
display.
Ms Martin:
Well, yes, but it's not common practice to have work they don't
own or wish to own in their vaults. If this bill goes through and
these 3,000 works have to go, I suppose you could bury them
underground, but then you're looking at all kinds of problems
with contracts, artists' reputations, their copyrights, their
access to their copyrights. What's the point of not being able to
show it? I'm sort of loosing it here, I'm afraid.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Munro and Ms Martin. We appreciate your coming
before us to make your presentation.
1630
KEN DANBY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by Mr Ken Danby. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Ken
Danby: Thank you. I would like to read a short
statement, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions.
My name is Ken Danby. I am
an artist and a painter, and I've been professionally engaged in
the creation of art in this province for more than 40 years. I'm
also quite familiar with the needs and aspirations of the visual
art community. I served as a member of the board of directors of
the Canada Council for the Arts for six years and as a member of
the board of trustees of the National Gallery of Canada for four
and a half years, as well as serving as a member of various other
boards.
I don't know Robert or
Signe McMichael personally, but I am certainly aware of them.
It's been some time since I visited the McMichael gallery; I
believe the last time was 1981. Therefore, my perspective on this
issue is not influenced by personal relationships or much
familiarity with the facility, but only by the principles of my
beliefs and my experience.
I believe that Bill 112 is
a most commendable act which returns the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection Act to its rightful position by reflecting the terms
which the province originally agreed to when accepting the
McMichaels' generous gift. I believe it is most regrettable that
the McMichaels have personally been subjected to so much
compromise and condemnation by those who prefer to deny they
should have any rights in this matter. They most certainly do. It
is perfectly understandable that the McMichaels would only want
to extend their considerable gift to the people of Ontario if
they could be confident that the terms of the gift-the agreement,
if you like-would be honoured. By subsequently revising these
terms, for whatever reasons, the government of the day breached
the agreement. It's as simple as that.
Like many of you, I've read
the various articles in the press which criticize this bill,
often on the premise of protecting artistic freedom of judgment,
the sanctity of curatorial decision-making, why we shouldn't
challenge the expertise of the experts and the need for our
cultural institutions to be free from constraints within their
mandates and on and on. What I see appears to reflect a rather
insecure and elitist attitude from those who probably feel a need
to defend their territories from perceived or imagined threat.
They would have us believe that only the members of their
community are capable of interpreting art and that the average
citizen is irrelevant to their preferred programs, except of
course as a taxpayer to cover their annual deficit when they lose
money.
In my opinion, while they
obsessively defend the policy prerogatives of the art gallery and
museum community, they
completely ignore the main issue of the McMichael problem, which
is that the original agreement was broken. Bill 112 will fix it.
I support the bill.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Danby. You've certainly left time for
questions, let's say about four minutes. This time the rotation
is the Liberals, Mr Gerretson.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): I want to respond to
something Ms Martin, the previous presenter, mentioned, and I'd
like to have your comments on it as well.
When I was elected as an
MPP five years ago and re-elected last year, I never thought I
would get involved in this kind of situation or that it would be
the main order of business for a provincial parliament, after it
had been in recess for three months, with all the various
problems we've got with respect to education, health care and
everything else in the province, that this would be the
government's first order of business for more or less the first
couple weeks of its session.
I enjoy the arts. My wife
and I spent the last two or three weekends going to all sorts of
studio tours in eastern Ontario, watching the vibrancy of
Canadian art displayed in so many different ways by so many
different artists. But I'm certainly not going to sit here and
say, "Well, this group of people has better judgment of what
should be good for this collection than another group of people."
I don't think that's the role of us as legislators, and yet I
think we've been put into this position with this kind of
bill.
From everything I've heard,
basically we have a financial problem here. The organization ran
a $1.6-million deficit last year and, I know, the year before
that etc. Wouldn't you agree with me that what's needed, first
and foremost, is an advisory board to deal with the finances of
the organization rather than the artistic advisory aspect of the
organization? Isn't that where it all should start, and get
government, per se, out of the business of deciding which art is
better or who's got a better feel for what aspect of Canadian
art? Do you agree with that?
Mr Danby:
I don't believe it's the government's job to determine what kind
of art is inherent in the collection. I don't believe that's part
of the bill.
Mr
Gerretsen: Well, I think the bill says we are basically
setting up an advisory committee in which two of the three people
will be the McMichaels-whom I don't know, although I understand
Mr McMichael is in the room today, and God bless him for the
tremendous gift he made to the province; I think generations to
come will benefit from that-and that two other people will be
appointed, in effect, by the Premier, and then one person,
presumably appointed by the board, to make specific decisions
with respect to artistic matters.
Mr Danby:
I've read the proposed bill, and I don't find a problem with the
way it's been structured. Certainly the McMichaels are being
brought back in at a level which reflects what they originally
agreed to, obviously, and I think this is what I was referring
to: the fact that this bill will return the flavour, the
character and the rights of the agreement they originally came to
accept.
Mr
Gerretsen: But the assumption by everybody is that if we
set up this advisory committee, that will somehow deal with the
financial situation. There's absolutely no guarantee that will
happen.
Mr Danby:
I don't see that as being a part of it. The financial situation
is surely a policy that is overseen by the board in consultation
with others who they bring in to advise them, and certainly the
whole thing falls under the Ministry of Culture.
Of course there are
measures, there are steps where the financial aspects of things
are answerable.
Mr
Gerretsen: I can tell you that the government has
basically taken the position that the reason this bill is needed
is to deal with the financial situation that exists at the
McMichael. That's why this bill is here and that's why we're
dealing with it. That's the reason we've been given over and over
again, and yet the bill itself doesn't seem to deal with that
aspect at all. It seems to deal more with who should, or should
not, be on this advisory committee.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Danby. We appreciate your taking the time to come
before us today.
Mr Danby:
My pleasure.
SOCIETY OF INUIT ART COLLECTORS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Society of Inuit Art
Collectors. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Jamie
Cameron: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'd like to
begin by thanking the committee for granting us this opportunity
to appear this afternoon.
My name is Jamie Cameron,
and I am the secretary for the Society of Inuit Art Collectors.
I'm joined this afternoon by Mr John Cowan, president of the
Society of Inuit Art Collectors, and by Mr Christopher Bredt, a
member of the Society of Inuit Art Collectors. We appear this
afternoon to speak on behalf of the society.
We appear this afternoon
because we have some general concerns about Bill 112, but we have
particular concerns about the future of the art of indigenous
peoples under Bill 112. We have concerns, as well, about the
management structure of Bill 112.
1640
We have submitted a written
presentation that I believe has been distributed to members of
the committee. Ten minutes is not very long, so I'll start on our
presentation and deal mainly with our first and primary point,
and hope to get to our second point about the management
structure, which is also very important to us. We'll see how the
time goes.
I would just like to say
before I start on our main presentation that all three members of
the Society of Inuit Art Collectors who are here before you this
afternoon are members of the McMichael gallery. We have been
supporters of the McMichael gallery for very many years and we
are very anxious to see the McMichael gallery survive for the
future, whether under Bill 112 or other legislative
arrangements.
I'd like to begin by calling the committee's
attention to proposed section 8 of Bill 112, where the nature of
the collection is defined by the statutory provision. I'm not
going to read out section 8 because I don't have time to sit here
and read legislative provisions, but what is very striking for us
as Inuit art collectors and enthusiasts is that nowhere in
section 8 is the art of indigenous peoples mentioned, explicitly
included or explicitly protected in the mandate of the nature of
the collection. That is a matter of very serious concern to us
and it is indeed our main point about Bill 112 this
afternoon.
We regard the omission of
any mention of the art of indigenous peoples as a glaring
omission in this piece of legislation. I want to take just a
moment to give several reasons why we view this as an omission.
What I'm leading up to here is a proposed amendment that we would
strongly urge the committee to consider, which I'll read out in a
moment, to explicitly include the art of indigenous peoples in
section 8 as part of the mandate of the nature of the
collection.
But first I'd like to take
just a moment to explain the reasons why we as a society for
Inuit art collectors believe this is an omission that needs to be
remedied by amendment to section 8. First of all, the art of
indigenous peoples has been a part of the McMichael gallery's
vision since at least the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The
McMichael gallery's commitment to collect and exhibit the art of
indigenous peoples has been a consistent commitment over the
years since the late 1960s and the early 1970s. It's been a
consistent commitment on the part of the gallery to collect and
display the art of indigenous peoples.
By the way, perhaps I ought
to mention, just for clarification, that when I use the
expression "the art of indigenous peoples," I'm referring to
Inuit art, I'm referring to northwest coast art and I'm also
referring to the art of the woodland communities, but I'm not
making an exclusive or limited definition of the art of
indigenous peoples. I'm using it more in a generic sense.
The first reason we would
give for pointing to that omission in section 8 is that there has
been a commitment which has been consistent since the late 1960s
by the McMichael gallery to collect and exhibit and display the
art of indigenous peoples.
The second reason we think
this is an omission that requires rectification by amendment is
that the McMichael gallery has a substantial collection at this
point in time of Inuit, northwest coast, woodland and other
indigenous arts.
The third reason we would
give for asking the committee to consider an amendment along
these lines is that we view the McMichael gallery as a true
leader in this area. The McMichael gallery has mounted some
highly impressive exhibitions in recent years, it has very strong
curatorial staff in the area of the art of indigenous peoples and
we would be very distressed to see the McMichael gallery's
leadership in this area lost by reason of oversight or
legislative omission.
The fourth reason we would
give is that the art of the indigenous peoples is very important
and is an aspect of art that the public has grown to appreciate
and enjoy.
I should also say that
we've come here today on very short notice and therefore have not
provided any appendix materials to document the degree of
commitment by the McMichael gallery to the art of indigenous
peoples over the years. But if it would be helpful to the
committee, we would be happy to undertake the task of documenting
our presentation in more detail, if it would help the committee
come to any decision about amending section 8 to include a
specific reference to the art of indigenous peoples.
Last, I guess we would like
to say that we think it's important for the committee to consider
an amendment along these lines and not to leave the status of the
art of indigenous peoples up in the air as a result of the
legislation. I guess our view is that not specifically protecting
and mentioning the art of indigenous peoples throws a significant
aspect of the McMichael gallery's operations into uncertainty and
doubt for the immediate future under Bill 112. We also believe
that the failure to specifically protect the art of indigenous
peoples under section 8 is detrimental to the leadership and the
forward energy the McMichael has shown in educating the public
about the art of the indigenous peoples. We think the uncertainty
in this regard is likely to affect public confidence in the
McMichael gallery in the future and could affect membership
support and donations.
I hope I have been able to
convey to the committee that we are deeply concerned about the
status of the art of indigenous peoples under Bill 112. We
strongly urge the committee to adopt the amendment we have
proposed as set out in our initial summary page, where we suggest
that a subsection should be added to section 8 that will
expressly include indigenous or native artists, encompassing but
not limited to the art of Inuit, west coast and woodland
communities, in the McMichael collection's statutory mandate.
I would like, with the
committee's indulgence, simply to read the second part of our
concerns about Bill 112. I'm taking this directly from our
summary just so that it is read into the record. Our second
concern has to do with the narrow composition of the art advisory
committee under section 4.1(1) of the proposed legislation-and I
can't take the time to read that out to you-and the unfettered
authority that is granted to that committee to designate artists
under subsection (e) to be included in the collection.
Recommendations regarding acquisitions, exhibitions loans and
disposal should, in our view, be formulated by a much broader
group than that contemplated by Bill 112, including the McMichael
Canadian Art Collection CEO and curatorial experts. Decisions
regarding which artists are to be included in the public
collection, even within the narrower original vision of the
McMichael collection, need to he made with a much boarder
consensus.
Therefore we propose two
further amendments to Bill 112. First, we suggest that a
subsection (5) should be added to section 4.1(1), to include the
McMichael Canadian Art Collection CEO and senior curatorial staff
as members of the art advisory committee as well as three
additional nominees from the board. Second, to achieve
consistency with the rest of section 4.1(2), subsection(e), in
our view, should be amended and the word "designate" removed and
replaced by "to make recommendations to the board.
I'm sorry I went through
those latter two recommendations fairly quickly. It was out of
necessity. We have put in our main submission a more detailed
explanation of our reasons for having concerns about the
composition of the art advisory committee, and we would simply
ask this committee to give serious consideration to the
amendments we have suggested and to take seriously the concerns
we have about Bill 112 as currently drafted.
The Chair:
Excellent. We've actually gone a little over time, but thank you,
Ms Cameron, and your colleagues, for coming forward and making
your presentation today.
1650
MICHAEL BURNS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Mr Michael Burns. Welcome to
the committee.
Mr Michael
Burns: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you for the
privilege of being allowed to speak to this illustrious group.
Let me start by giving you a brief explanation as to who I am and
why I'm here.
I was first appointed to
the McMichael board in 1986. I subsequently received two further
appointments, one for three years and another for two years. I
held the positions of trustee, vice-chairman and chairman. I was
chairman for six to seven years-I'm not quite sure how long it
was. Subsequently I was the founding chairman of the McMichael
Canadian Art Foundation. So you can see I have a long association
with this organization.
During my tenure with the
McMichael, I devoted my full energies toward fundraising, budget
control and control-management of the McMichael. When I joined
the board, we had just reopened from renovations and were in the
process of seeking a new executive director.
Prior to the reopening, the
McMichael was funded 100% by the government of Ontario. During my
tenure and in subsequent years, we were able to take the
government funding down from well in excess of 90% to just below
50%. I think that's a remarkable accomplishment, and I think the
trustees and the volunteers who worked so hard to do that deserve
credit for it.
Along with our fundraising
went the reduction of the grant from the government-and
rightfully so, I think-but we were always able to struggle
through and show a slight surplus of revenues to expenses. The
year we fell behind, and it was only one year during my tenure,
was the first year of the Rae government. The previous government
had instituted a study of the salaries of employees at the
McMichael and had decided they were underpaid. They agreed they
would fund them up to the level of the AGO and the ROM over a
three-year period. Unfortunately, it was not in writing. The
government changed, and the Rae government chose not to honour it
for the next two years. The trustees felt morally obligated to
honour it for one of the two years. We had a slight deficit that
year, which we subsequently repaid.
After my tenure as chairman
I moved to the foundation, and the subsequent two and a half
years as a trustee again. The foundation was created to do the
fundraising. It got off to a very good start and was doing what I
considered an excellent job. Due to various suits brought by the
McMichaels against the government of Ontario, this fundraising
came to an abrupt halt. People will not give to an institution
that has no credibility. This institution gained no credibility
when one of the founders was suing the government. Donors do not
want to give money to an institution they think is going to pay
legal bills, despite the fact we were not. Subsequent to winning
in the appeals court and the denial to go to the Supreme Court,
fundraising got started again. Again, our credibility went all to
pot when a series of articles appeared in the newspapers about
the McMichael and what was going on there.
Then this bill appeared out
of nowhere, the court-won battles now reversed by legislation.
Legislation was in effect that worked for everybody but one
individual. That individual helped create some of the previous
legislation. The McMichael operated under various acts, the first
creating it an agency in the 1970s, and then the 1989 act that
clarified what the trustees had been doing to manage this asset
for the province and for the taxpayers of the province.
Mr Chairman, I personally
have given cash well in excess of $150,000 to this institution. I
raised well over $1 million in cash from my friends, from
corporations and from foundations. I helped bring the Cape Dorset
collection to the McMichael. This is the largest archival and
print collection in the world today. By this legislation, this
collection must be returned. We cannot keep it, because the
legislation does not allow us to maintain First Nations, Inuit or
Metis art, as the 1989 act did. It's a strange thing that a
government would act in this way.
Why must the mandate
change? Because one person changed his mind? Why should the
provincial government go back to paying 100%? That is what will
happen. I'm not a professional fundraiser, but I've raised funds
for many organizations. Why is professional management being
challenged on their ability without any input? How much
consulting on this bill was done with the people who have worked
at and for the McMichael and understood the challenges, people
who understand the uniqueness of the gallery and the problems
around the controversy?
Chairman and ladies and
gentlemen, I implore you to take a step backwards. The 1989 bill,
which the McMichael worked under, worked. No new bill is
required. Leave the collecting and management in the hands of the
professionals, not the government or untrained individuals. Allow the director and
curators to operate a growing, vibrant place, not a dying,
stagnant place.
I can point out a few flaws
in the bill:
In the bill, the board is
not able to reject any artist selected by the committee of
five.
There is lack of clarity in
the collection. This is what the 1989 act tried to do.
The elimination of First
Nations, Inuit and Metis art is a grave mistake.
Reduction of the director's
authority-he's not even allowed to be an ex officio member of the
group of five.
The elimination of the need
of a curator: if the group of five are going to make the
decisions, why do we have to pay a curator?
The disproportionate ratio
of government appointments to the board versus the public, and
here I mean that the people who are donating the money are not
allowed to sit on the board. If it's a 19-man board and there are
19 government appointments to the board, where do you think the
fifth member of the group of five is going to come from? It will
be a government appointee. Therefore the government controls
it.
Does the ministry want to
run the gallery and be accountable to ensure the McMichaels get
their way?
The wording is vague enough
that it appears the McMichaels will reach out of their graves to
continue their control.
In summary, the board has
been stripped of its authority and power. The director has been
reduced from CEO to a mere administrator. The McMichaels are
restored to power and control, and are protected by the
ministry.
If there are any questions,
I may well be able to answer some of the financial questions-the
numbers being bandied around this table are inaccurate.
The Chair:
Actually you're just about bang on your time, so I'm afraid there
won't be time for questions. But I very appreciate much your
bringing the historical perspective before us today.
Mr Burns:
I have copies of my comments if anybody wishes them. I'll just
leave them.
The Chair:
Thank you. The clerk will distribute them to the members.
1700
DAVID BRALEY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by Mr David Braley. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr David
Braley: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have been two and a
half hours on the Queen Elizabeth way with a major traffic
accident, four ambulances and a whole pile of things which aren't
very nice. It's been a frustrating two and a half hours to get
here and I arrived about one minute ago. So I'm still a
little-
Mr
Marchese: What about the trucks? Any trucks on the
road?
Mr Braley:
Not on that road. Well, the normal ones travelling, but not any
stoppage. But the police had every exit sealed off and it goes
right back to downtown here, so getting out of here, you'd better
leave about 7 or 8 o'clock tonight.
Mr
Gerretsen: Would you like a glass of water?
Mr Braley:
Yes, that would be nice. It's been a frustrating two and a half
hours.
I'm rather new to the
process and I can only talk as an individual and I can't even at
this point speak as chairman of the McMichael because our first
board meeting is next week, on Friday. So I can only tell you
what I feel and the things that have come to my attention over a
period of time.
The McMichael collection is
the best collection of Canadian art that I know of. I believe
everybody in Ontario should know about this collection. One of my
jobs is to find the correct way to market it to our audience. As
chairman, I believe that I can make a contribution to that end.
Most of you are aware of my managerial experience, and I have a
sensitivity toward art that can be useful in revitalizing the
McMichael. I realized there would be some irritations connected
with acceptance of this task, but I thought it was worthwhile to
try.
I've been talking to a lot
of people. I've talked to some of the directors, I've talked to
the general public, I've talked to the staff, I've talked to
people who have contributed in the past-I'm up to over 150 people
at the present time-to find out their thoughts and ideas about
the McMichael. I've come to some tentative conclusions, which
I'll get back to in a minute.
First, I want to say a word
about the McMichael. It has a core collection of art built around
the Group of Seven, but it also includes the work of many other
contemporary Canadian artists. This, of course, includes
aboriginal art. There was a time, I'm told, when the McMichael
attracted twice as many visitors as it does today, back when it
was seen as a gallery for the kind of art that symbolized Canada.
We'd like to see it draw those kinds of crowds again, and
more.
Many of the world's museums
and galleries are tourist attractions and destination points. The
McMichael collection, which would serve as a similar tourist
destination and showcase for Canadian art, has in recent years
never had its assets marketed toward this goal to the degree that
I envision, and I say "to the degree I envision." I'm not saying
it hasn't been marketed, but maybe not marketed to the degree
that I envision.
For any of you who have not
seen it, let me tell you what a wonderful treasure we have here
in the McMichael. The location alone is unsurpassed. As I said,
I've seen a lot of the world's art galleries and museums. I
travel a great deal on business and I've been in Budapest, behind
the Iron Curtain, in foreign countries, to their art galleries,
to the middle of a beautiful plaza with bronze statues that are
all carved and the art galleries around the outside, to see
exceptional works of art.
I view the McMichael as
what tourists call a total destination package: a whole-day
adventure for the family. Look at what is being offered: the
artwork focused on the Group of Seven and their contemporaries;
the beautiful grounds
themselves; the conservation area beyond, which is now linked to
the gallery.
I know that good marketing
of a good product can work. It worked in Hamilton where I was a
governor of the Art Gallery of Hamilton. Admissions in Hamilton
improved 60% in 1999 and another 40% so far this year. That's a
program that I took personal interest in developing with the Art
Gallery of Hamilton. We started from what might seem the obvious:
you have to get people into the gallery before anything else can
happen, and once they are there, they leave their money
behind.
There are a lot of new
approaches that will be taken in the coming months. We will be
seeking community partners in the corporate world to help us
market the McMichael. Why shouldn't every schoolchild within 100
miles come for a relaxed and pleasant learning experience at the
gallery?
We are taking care of a few
mundane problems, too, that haven't helped the gallery sell
itself. That includes fixing the roof, windows and mechanical
systems in the building that houses the collection, thanks to a
generous $2-million donation by the provincial government.
I'd like to say at this
point, having been the chair of the McMichael for a couple of
months, that I'm very optimistic about the future of the gallery.
In the McMichael, as a gallery and a tourist destination, we have
an opportunity to build a lasting monument to Canadian art.
As chair, I've been
listening to people's concerns about some part of Bill 112. I've
come to the conclusion that a few amendments are required to make
the legislation function more smoothly.
In section 2 we need to add
at the end of the section 1.1, paragraph 2, the phrase "and other
artists who have contributed to the development of Canadian art."
In the same section, section 1.1, paragraph 3, the word
"province" should be replaced by "country" or something
equivalent-Canada or country or something. We also should drop
"during the first half of the twentieth century" because the
collection, even when the McMichaels collected it, went beyond
just the first half of that century and it was a little wider. So
by putting the word "country" and dropping "the first half of the
twentieth century," you actually meet the mandate exactly as
outlined in the first place.
Under the same section,
section 1.1, paragraph 7, "There should be an art advisory
committee to advise on matters related to the collection," the
words "composition" and "display" should be added.
The same is true under
subsection 3(1), paragraph 2. Eliminate "Four trustees appointed
by the board." That was added in 1989. In my opinion, he who owns
the collection should appoint the trustees. It should not be a
matter for the board itself to appoint. He who owns the gold in
business makes the final decisions, calls the shots, and should
place the trustees to protect their interest in that asset, and
therefore the board should not appoint those trustees.
I'm trying to tie the
changes together with my verbiage that I've prepared. I believe,
and it doesn't matter whether it does or not, the current bylaw
should be repealed on passing the legislation. Otherwise I'm
going to be spending 60 days changing all the bylaws to meet the
current needs of the mandate of the legislation. Instead of
having seven committees, I've got now an art committee to replace
another committee, so it would be wise if we repealed the
existing bylaws to be able to facilitate doing business. It's not
necessary, it can be done, but it just takes a little longer to
get there.
Under subsection 4.1(1),
paragraph 3, there's a little bit of confusion between the
McMichaels' appointment as lifelong members of the board of
trustees and on the art advisory committee. They should be both
the same and they should all have added "in accordance with
subsections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) or 3(5)." There's a listing
that just ties the legislation together. I've had my attorneys go
over it in great detail. It's a little confusing. If it was
added, it would just straighten out and make consistent how the
McMichaels sit, and they sit with their trustees in place if
they're not able to sit, and how that works in both sections
being consistent.
The role of the art
advisory committee should be made more explicit by pointing out
that it may advise on the composition and display of the
collection.
1710
Subsection 4(2) should be
amended to permit committees to be made up of trustees, employees
and volunteers for the control and conduct of the gallery. The
existing legislation refers to committees of trustees only and it
would not allow us to use the expertise of all the people. We
could do subcommittees of committees to get there, but everybody
who has the kind of knowledge we need should be utilized. It
doesn't mean they have the authority; the authority is vested in
the board. In other words, the committees would pass a motion and
that would have to go to the board for approval, and the board,
in the final analysis, would make the decisions. But there are an
awful lot of great volunteers out there who should be put to work
as part of the overall organization. But they can only make
recommendations to the board, and the board has the final say and
carries with it its mandate and therefore the responsibility.
It allows, then, also
our-
The Chair:
Excuse me, Mr Braley. I should point out you're in your last
minute now.
Mr Braley:
Oh, I'm sorry. I had no idea. I've never been to a committee
meeting before. I'm almost done.
The Chair:
We've had so many people request spots before the committee,
we've had to limit it to 10 minutes each. So if you have any
closing comments.
Mr Braley:
In addition, there's a need to clarify that a quorum for the art
advisory committee should be a majority of the committee. There
are many ways of tackling this. You can increase the committee to
seven and therefore have five or leave it as five and have three,
but you could be stalled forever if you didn't have a quorum as a
majority.
These changes, while
essentially housekeeping in nature, will aid with the
rehabilitation of the McMichael as the finest gallery in Canada. I'll stop
there, rather than continuing, but I've made my recommendations
known to the ministry so that in due course they can be dealt
with or not dealt with as they see appropriate, because it's
their money and it's their gallery.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Braley. I appreciate the effort you took to get
here today, and I wish you all the best in your new role.
Mr Braley:
Thank you very much, and thank you for listening to me.
JEAN EADIE
The Chair:
Our next presentation is from Ms Jean Eadie. Good afternoon.
Welcome to the committee.
Ms Jean
Eadie: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, committee members.
This is not going to be a formal presentation; I have no printed
things. Dr Trevor Hancock was supposed to be here from Kleinburg
today, but he couldn't come. I am a great lover of the McMichael
gallery, and I am very concerned about Bill 112, and when the
opportunity appeared, I came here.
Back 50 years ago, Lib and
Jack McClelland, the Bertons, the McMichaels and the Eadies-I am
Jean Eadie-purchased property near Kleinburg. The other three
families remained in Kleinburg for many more years than us. In
1955, my husband went to India and for the next 30 years we had
been living and working mostly in Asia, four years in Labrador.
Then we came home to build a house on the property which we had
owned.
My husband was a very
fortunate little boy; he was one of Arthur Lismer's Saturday
morning students. To Arthur Lismer he gives credit for making him
able to do the things he has done in his life. So of course we
immediately became members of McMichael when we returned. Oh, and
we found out that when he was 11 years old, Doris McCarthy was
his mentor. Anyway, McMichael was very special, and after we had
the house built I became a docent for some years and really loved
McMichael. No longer am I a docent; age has sort of crept up on
me. Each tour is always begun with the explanation that this
originally was the home of Robert and Signe McMichael and there's
a small collection which they gave to the people of Ontario in
1965.
I happen to believe that
they gave it to me and to all of the people of Ontario and the
citizens of Canada. They gave us a gift, and we really appreciate
it. Then things happened. During those years since 1988, when I
came back, a number of us who have worked with the gallery felt
that the people were doing a wonderful job. There were so many
volunteers, including the trustees. I was going to mention
Michael Burns, Joe Goldfarb, Lyman Henderson and Neville Poy and
many volunteers who are there many days. I was there two days a
week. Many of the other volunteers are there more days than that.
We felt that the administration were doing a superb job.
Unfortunately, Robert
McMichael smirched the name of his gift. Three people ahead of me
have presented much more articulately than I can what my stand
is. Jane Martin gave a terrific presentation, as did Michael
Burns and Jamie Cameron of the artists' collection.
My request is that the bill
be rescinded or withdrawn. I am totally opposed to Bill 112
because I think the current staff have carried on the initial,
and Michael Burns has put forward to you the reason they could
not raise funds. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Eadie. If you'd like to take questions,
we've got about four minutes. Mr Marchese is next in the
rotation.
Mr
Marchese: Thank you, Ms Eadie, for coming. I think
you're expressing the concerns of many Ontarians and many who are
following this issue. I happen to think that what this government
is doing is wrong and stupid.
This intervention has
intended and unintended consequences. I'm not sure they've
thought about the unintended consequences, and there are many.
Many presenters who came here Monday have spoken to them, and
some today.
I happen to believe that
the mandate of 1965 is what we have all been working on.
Ms Eadie:
That's what we believe.
Mr
Marchese: 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 a contribution
to the development of Canadian art."
I argued earlier, and
others have argued, this was intended to be inclusionary, not
exclusionary. It meant that many would be part of the McMichael
collection. Who it would be we didn't know, but that would
progress according to the times and according to curatorial kinds
of decisions.
Somehow this government has
convinced itself, and I don't know who started what, but Mr
Harris through his intervention has convinced himself that we
need to go to some original mandate, which is not what I have
read. The impression I get from what others have presented here,
who support Mr McMichael and his desires, is that we should go
back to the Group of Seven presumably and the three others he had
agreed to, and that would be the extent of it. That's the
impression I get. Is that the impression you're getting from some
of the presentations, from those who support this bill?
Ms Eadie:
One of my concerns I didn't mention is the First Nations artists.
Jamie Cameron didn't present that. That is one of our very
serious concerns. We think the McMichael is quite unique.
Mr
Marchese: By the way, it's my concern too. I don't just
want to amend it; you see, I think the whole bill is wrong. I
think amending it is a problem.
Ms Eadie:
Yes, exactly. The bill should be withdrawn.
Mr
Marchese: The other group that came before us said we
should include an amendment that would include Inuit and
aboriginal works. I think that would be a mistake, if we get
sucked into including some and excluding others.
Ms Eadie:
Absolutely, yes.
Mr Marchese: The problem that
others have commented on is that we should go back-I'll read
section 8 to you: "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 various names, and I think it's just
10 names, the ones Mr McMichael agreed to.
Ms Eadie:
Yes, only 10; I counted them. Frank Johnston is missing.
1720
Mr
Marchese: The other change that worries me is that it
says, "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." It's almost the same as the
original mandate, except that the ones who would determine who
else it would be are comprised of the two McMichaels and three
other people-friends, I assume, of Mr Harris and possibly Mr
McMichael.
I'm worried because this
advisory committee has this power. It's a non-professional
committee, called the art advisory committee, that would actually
have direct responsibility for acquisitions-not to advise but to
acquire-de-accessioning, meaning getting rid of, and exhibitions
and displays. All that power now goes back to Mr McMichael and a
few others. As opposed to being advisory, they decide these
things. What do you think about that?
Ms Eadie:
The advisory committee of five, as far as I am concerned-many of
us who have worked as volunteers at the McMichael believed the
collection belonged to us, and we are willing to share it with
Signe and Robert McMichael. We are all equal. I feel I should
equally be one of those five advisers. It is my art collection.
Why those five should be is beyond comprehension.
The Chair:
With that, our time is up. Ms Eadie, we appreciate your taking
the time to come before us today.
MARGARET MCBURNEY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by Ms Margaret McBurney. Welcome to
the committee.
Ms Margaret
McBurney: Thank you. I'm here on behalf of myself, first
of all, but I'm also here as the immediate past president of the
Arts and Letters Club, which, as I think you know, is where the
Group of Seven began. I'm also the author of six books on
Canadian social and architectural history. So I've had more than
a nodding acquaintance with the Group of Seven for more years
than I care to think about.
If you will bear with
me-and I don't know how much of this you have heard in the last
two days-I thought I would give you a brief rundown of the group,
who I think you must know were a group of raging iconoclasts.
They were young, feisty men who were fighting against an
entrenched system, with the rest of the art world looking at them
with far more than raised eyebrows. They ran into a lot of
problems with some members of the Arts and Letters Club, who
accused them of being part of a hot mush school of painting. They
said that their work looked like flung paint pots. They told them
that and threw buns and whatnot at them across our great hall,
which still rings with the sounds of the roaring about their
painting.
J.H. MacDonald, who was
pretty well the head of the group, was struggling hard, along
with the rest of them-with the exception of Lawren Harris-to make
a living by painting in the 1920s. He said, "If Michelangelo or
Giotto had lived in Toronto, they'd have had to move to New
York." Plus ça change: 75 years later, things are not a lot
better.
The group painted for only
about 11 years. MacDonald died in 1932 when Mr McMichael was 11
years old, just to put things in perspective. Frank Johnston left
in 1922. Holgate, Casson and so on came in during the next 10
years, and it was all over as a group in 1933, when those who
were left formed the Canadian Group of Painters. I thought Lawren
Harris summed up very well what the group was about, and I find
it extremely pertinent to what's happening today. He was an
articulate man. He said, "There is no finality, no final
statement; everything remains to be re-created by every creative
artist." If he were here today, he'd be applying that to the
situation at the McMichael.
An anonymous artist at the
time-you'll know why he was anonymous, and this is just to tell
you what the situation was like and what they were fighting
against then-said in 1931, "Tonight I give a lecture to the Art
Student League. I want a picture of a horse to show that the
animal is beautiful because every part of it is made for
function, without ornament. In Paris I would show a woman. But in
Toronto I show a horse." Things progressed as the group broke up,
and in 1955 Graham Coughtry said, "Every damn
pine tree in the country has been painted." They were moving on,
as they should have.
Yesterday I called my
friend Franklin Arbuckle, RCA. He's known as Archie to his
friends. He's the son-in-law of Frank Johnston of the Group of
Seven. I think Archie is the only man alive who knew every member
of the Group of Seven, so I phoned to see what he thought of this
situation. He has a remarkable memory and can talk at some length
about the group. He listened to this for a while and then he
said, "I love going to the McMichael, but I wouldn't want to go
there if it's a museum. I want to go to the McMichael to see
what's new." This from a man who has 12 of his paintings hanging
in the McMichael collection, and he as an artist is still looking
for what is new.
I think it's clear from
these few remarks and from almost anything I have read of the
Group of Seven that they would not want to see their works
hanging in a museum where little changes, but in a gallery that
is constantly changing, demanding our attention and exciting us.
They wanted much more than a museum. Should Bill 112 take effect,
that's what we'll get. Before long we'll be hearing people say,
"The McMichael? Oh, yeah. Been there, done that, bought the
poster."
Surely we can work creatively to deal with the
present financial situation at the McMichael. As Sir William
Osler said, in a line that still haunts me in many situations,
which I want to share with you-this is about 100 years ago, but
again, some things never change-"Conservatism
and old-fogeyism are totally different things: the motto of the
one is, `Prove all things and hold fast that which is good,' and
of the other, `Prove nothing but hold fast that which is
old.'"
The Group of Seven's Arthur
Lismer said much the same thing: "Art is not something for
ourselves to hoard, like a possession." He also said, "The truest
art, that which necessity creates [so] that beauty may live,
civilization destroys." I ask you not to be part of a
civilization that destroys this wonderful gift to the Canadian
people.
The Chair:
That gives us time for about two and a half minutes of
questioning. From the government side, Ms Munro.
Ms
McBurney: Mr Chairman, the Arts and Letters Club sends
for you people a copy of our book, called The Group of Seven, Why
not Eight or Nine or Ten? I've got one for each of you. Is it all
right to distribute them?
The Chair:
The clerk will be happy to do that. Ms McBurney, does that mean
you're not interested in taking questions?
Ms
McBurney: Oh, no, I'm happy to try to answer.
The Chair:
I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't loud enough.
Mrs Munro:
Actually, I'm going to acquiesce to Mrs Elliott.
The Chair:
OK, Ms Elliott has a question for you.
Mrs
Elliott: Thank you very much for your presentation
today. I think that in many ways you've struck at the heart of
what is being debated here today. I couldn't help but be
reminded, in your comments, of presentations that were made in
1989 by the Liberal minister, Ms Oddie Munro, when the Liberals
were presenting the changed mandate for the McMichael collection
to the House. Interestingly enough, while we're here in the midst
of this long debate-and several days of debate in the House have
already preceded us-only five minutes of debate occurred at that
time in the House when the mandate was changed so very
dramatically. I guess that's what is at the heart of this. In
1989, under the Liberals, the mandate was changed so that the
McMichael collection, which is managed through an agency of the
province of Ontario, was essentially being redesigned, and the
words she used several times were, "with a more dynamic mandate."
I think you used those same words yourself. It's our view that
that was a great variance from the spirit of the original 1965
agreement.
While I understand your
concern that a gallery or a collection should be constantly
interesting and exciting and wanting to draw people forward, I
guess we're viewing very differently how that is to be done. We
view that focusing on a collection that has a very clear
focus-the Group of Seven and its historic interest in the
development of Canadian art-is the way to go.
Are you aware of how deeply
the finances have been mismanaged over the last while and our
concerns about how this would actually affect the success of the
gallery?
Ms
McBurney: I understand the deficit is $1.5 million. I'm
not brushing that aside. I think poor management is rampant in
all aspects of society, not just in the art world, although I
would suggest that art galleries should be treated in a somewhat
better way in a civilized society, the way they are in most
European countries where they're not expected to earn money.
I assume this can be looked
after by bringing in good financial management. God knows I'd be
the last one to be ageist, but I'm not sure a 79-year-old man is
someone to tackle a problem of this scope.
The Chair:
We're out of time, I'm afraid.
Thank you, Ms McBurney. I
appreciate your taking time to come before us here this
afternoon.
1730
CANADIAN ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS ORGANIZATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be by the Canadian Art Museum
Directors Organization. Ms Davis, welcome to the committee.
Ms Kate
Davis: My name is Kate Davis. I'm director of the
MacKenzie Art Gallery in Regina, Saskatchewan, and I'm also
vice-president of the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization,
known as CAMDO. I'm presenting today on behalf of the president
of the association, Jann Bailey, who unfortunately couldn't make
it to Toronto in time to make a presentation, as well as the
membership of the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization.
Thank you for the
opportunity to present our views regarding Bill 112. The Canadian
Art Museum Directors Organization is a national organization of
art museum directors. Our membership includes Canada's art
museums from coast to coast, and I've provided a list of our
members with the documentation of this presentation for your
reference.
CAMDO has worked with the
Canadian Museums Association and many others concerning issues
surrounding Bill 112. We feel this bill is inappropriate,
unnecessary and potentially hazardous. Indeed, as arts
professionals, we feel this legislation simply is not in the best
interests of the cultural community and, more importantly, not in
the best interests of the public good and we urge you to please
reconsider passing this legislation into law.
CAMDO would like to address
three primary issues that are all interrelated: (1) governance;
(2) donors, sponsors and funders; and finally (3) the public
trust.
(1) Governance: Art museums
in Canada are incorporated and structured to serve the public.
Through best practices policies adopted and passed by trustees,
professional staff maintain, nurture and steward an organization.
They are guided by policies that are morally and ethically driven
to maintain the public trust.
An orderly governance
structure also ensures the arm's-length principle whereby the
state does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of an
institution. The McMichael and the government of Ontario have a
governance structure already in place with administrative and
regulatory tools needed to resolve any and all difficulties
without layering yet another level of legislation on this public
institution.
McMichael board members are
fiduciaries whose primary duty is not to the crown, but to the
public interest. The government of Ontario is placing these
appointed friends-trustees-in a very difficult position, as the
board's primary duty is to the objects and beneficiaries of the
trust, in other words, the public, not its political masters or
individuals, even if these individuals are past donors.
CAMDO adamantly feels that
this legislation is legally questionable and could be vulnerable
to a variety of legal and constitutional challenges under section
15 of the charter, and trust law. The law imposes a general duty
of loyalty upon all fiduciaries: an obligation to act honestly,
prudently, diligently, even-handedly, candidly and strictly in
the best interests of the trust. Are you really prepared to have
a member of the public name each and every board member and your
government as co-defendants in a case of public trust? Surely the
government of Ontario can slow down, consult the appropriate
parties-the board, the arts professionals, the public, your legal
teams-and find a proactive, collaborative path to help this
important Canadian institution.
(2) Donors, sponsors and
funders: I know you've heard from many other speakers about the
important relationship all museums share with their donors to
ensure fiscal stability, so I won't belabour this point. The key
is, through both provincial and federal law, we have avenues to
acknowledge and compensate donors. We understand that the
McMichaels are only two of many donors whose generosity
throughout the past three decades has played a critical role in
the founding and development of this great Canadian asset. We
also understand everyone has been appropriately compensated for
those gifts.
The McMichaels are
recognized for their outstanding gift to Ontario and Canada, and
they play an important role in the continuing life of this
institution. The 1972 act stipulates, in fact, that the
McMichaels shall be trustees for life, but there's no suggestion
whatsoever that their powers will in any way be superior to those
of the other trustees.
Moreover, CAMDO would urge
the government of Ontario to consider the enormous effect this
bill would have on our donors and charities in relation to
financial gifts, as well as gifts of artworks. We can only
anticipate the anxiety among other patrons and donors who will
justifiably worry if their original gifts with the McMichael, or
other museums and galleries for that matter, can't or won't be
respected. If this trust is broken, so is our ability to be
fiscally sound and to steward continuing development of our
collections.
(3) The public trust: CAMDO
firmly believes this legislation undermines the fiduciary
responsibility of the government-appointed board. They are
accountable for this institution in the public trust.
The government and members
of the board surely must ask themselves about the legalities of
this legislation. You need to protect yourselves from liability
in the case of subsequent litigation by other donors, funders,
artists held within the collection and all those who supported
this institution in good faith.
The government must
ask:
What is the role of the
government vis-à-vis the administration of the trust and
what rights and obligations does this involve?
Is the proposed legislation
consistent with the original purposes of the trust as spelled out
in successive instruments and as interpreted through practice and
by the courts?
If the government is a
trustee of the McMichael, would the passage of this legislation
constitute a violation of its fiduciary duty?
If the government is acting
in its capacity as a public watchdog, has it exceeded or lost its
jurisdiction through procedural improprieties or errors of
law?
There are a number of
concerns we could comment on concerning issues of public trust,
but given our time I'd like to conclude my remarks.
Museum professionals,
scholars and others concerned with Bill 112 have been accused of
being out of touch with the public. What the people want, the
government urges, is to honour the intent of the gallery's
original mandate, which is to display works by the Group of Seven
and their contemporaries.
Please forgive me but I
want to end with a short story about a young Chinese boy growing
up in a repressed country learning to draw and develop his
lifelong passion for art from battered, torn and faded images of
works from books by members of the Group of Seven.
Struggling through art
school, having drawn with limited sticks of coal on whatever
surface he could find, this passionate and proud man immigrated
to Canada and just recently held a show at the McMichael. Gu
Xiong, working with contemporary curator Andrew Hunter, is now a
Canadian working through his art practice, which has been
influenced by the Group of Seven. This is a powerful example of
the kind of contribution to the development of Canadian art that
we in the field feel needs to continue at the McMichael.
Who should be making these
decisions about art? The Premier, our donors, the public? How
about professionals who have been trained and who have dedicated
their careers to the arts as experienced cultural
professionals?
Members of the Canadian Art
Museum Directors Organization urge the government of Ontario to
rethink this legislation, and we would be happy to assist in the
process. We ask that you consider the integrity of this proud and
forward-thinking institution and move forward in assisting the
board through appropriate governance structures.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That basically has taken the full 10
minutes. I appreciate very much your taking the time to bring the
perspective of the association to us here today.
Ms Davis:
Thank you.
1740
ROYAL CANADIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.
Good afternoon, Mr Bolt, and welcome to the committee.
Mr Ron
Bolt: Thank you very much. I drove in from Cobourg this
afternoon, and just to keep you informed, there are lots of
trucks on the road.
I am here as president of
the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts and as a professional artist
of 35 years who was given a one-man show at the McMichael gallery
in the early 1970s.
At the RCA's October 14
meeting of our national council, I was asked to speak to you on
the issue of the McMichael gallery and Bill 112, but first a few
points about the academy to put our viewpoint into some
context.
The national council
represents over 600 members from coast to coast. The membership
roughly parallels the general distribution of the Canadian
population, with the highest percentage of members residing in
Ontario and Quebec. The only criterion for membership is
outstanding work as defined by a jury of the applicant's peers.
The membership recognizes artists in the conventional fields of
painting, sculpture and architecture, plus cutting-edge
practitioners in those arts and 17 other disciplines, including
film, photography, set design and industrial design. Our outreach
programs include scholarships to emerging artists, grants to
public galleries for the purchase of Canadian art, plus national
and international exhibitions of the work of academicians.
The academy and the Group
of Seven share a common history. Every member, with the exception
of Varley, eventually became an academician, and A.J. Casson was
president of our group from 1948 to 1952. Those who know the
history of the two groups also know of the pitched battles they
had in the 1920s and 1930s, so it may seem ironic that we are
here to protest the intent of Bill 112.
Our primary concern is that
if this legislation is adopted, the Canadian people will be
denied a unique and powerful opportunity to learn about our
country's past in relation to the issues revolving around our
natural environment that shape our lives today. Contemporary
artists deal with issues that were unknown to the Group of
Seven's generation, issues like environmental degradation and
urban sprawl. The Group was cutting-edge for its time. If they
were alive today, some of them would be addressing just such
issues. Contemporary Canadian and international art has come to
be not only about defining what is beautiful-in this case, the
vast and rugged Canadian landscape-it is also about dealing with
concepts such as that landscape's fragility and the need to
protect it for future generations.
These are some of the
issues today's artists are dealing with, using the language of
today's art. They are important issues and they need an audience.
What better place to introduce them to the public than the
McMichael gallery, where the best of the past can be seen in
context with the dynamic statements of today's artists? The Group
of Seven loved this country. That love and concern for the
country is shared by contemporary artists and they need an
audience to tell people about it.
There are examples of
institutions that consistently join the past with the present to
make powerful contrast with what has gone before and what is
happening now. The Tate Gallery in London, England, has
established a number of satellite galleries around the country,
including the Tate Gallery West in St Ives, Cornwall. Its mandate
is to preserve, collect and exhibit the work of the artists who
made St Ives a centre of the international art world in the 1950s
and 1960s. However, they also exhibit challenging contemporary
work along with this. Their current exhibition also includes a
video installation inspired by the Cornish coastline and beaches
in Canada-by a Canadian, by the way-a statement using an
electronic medium unknown to the artists of the period.
Surely we as Canadians have
advanced in sophistication to where we can have at least one
institution that consistently does the same kind of thing,
namely, expanding the relevance of a treasured collection that is
historically and culturally specific by relating it to the
imagery and visual language of today's art.
If you adopt the policy of
collecting only painting of a narrow range by only a select group
of artists and give control of temporary exhibitions to those
with a narrow historical view, then a great educational
opportunity is lost. The McMichael gallery becomes a museum, a
place frozen in history, rather than what it is now: a living
gallery that celebrates the past and relates that heritage to the
public through today's art. The academy asks that you leave the
exhibition, collecting and curatorial policy of the McMichael
gallery as it now stands.
Our perception of this
legislation, and we believe the educated public shares that
perception, is that of government interference in the running of
a publicly owned gallery. The issues addressed in this
legislation have already been dealt with several years ago in a
lawsuit that the McMichaels lost.
This legislation sets a
dangerous precedent. Will the Ontario Arts Council, the
government agency that distributes funds to galleries across the
province, soon come under pressure from government in terms of
what kind of art it supports because it can't match its budget,
or for whatever other reasons?
As for the financial debt
of $1.6 million, again the perception is that the government is
attempting to water down and popularize a cultural institution to
attract more crowds and make the place financially viable at the
expense of a challenging exhibition agenda.
We have not seen the books.
Did the debt arise because of the restaurant, or the advertising
and promotional budgets not being big enough or imaginative
enough? There are all kinds of creative ways to deal with the
budget. Or is it because, as this legislation suggests, the kind
of art being shown is driving people away?
If the latter is indeed the thought behind the
legislation, we would remind you that the Group of Seven made art
in their own time that challenged Canadians' perceptions of their
country and, in the beginning, had to struggle for public
acceptance. The very reason for the existence of a cultural
institution is to challenge the public and move it to new
understandings, not to make us comfortable and to confirm what we
already know.
The current mandate of the
McMichael gallery allows it to fulfill its proper function. Don't
change it. Leave it alone and support the gallery with the public
funds it deserves.
The Chair:
Thank you. That leaves us about two and a half minutes for
questioning. This time, it will be to the Liberals.
Ms Di
Cocco: Thank you for your presentation. I have a
tremendous problem with this bill. I think it's absurd. I think
it's nonsensical. I don't even understand why we are dealing with
this kind of a bill that's micromanaging a gallery. I feel like
I'm being held hostage by some individuals who want control of a
public gallery. That's how I feel, as a legislator, at this
point. Have you ever seen in your experience any such legislation
by government that is micromanaging a gallery to this extent?
Mr Bolt:
No, but I would suggest that if you look at the Soviet Union
before the revolution, you might find one.
Ms Di
Cocco: In looking back, as well, I believe this
situation was clarified in the 1997 Court of Appeal, where we
spent thousands of taxpayers' dollars to fight exactly this type
of control. I guess the point I'm trying to get at is, how in
tarnation are we, as a province, going to-we have the largest and
one of the best galleries of Canadian art in Canada at the
McMichael. How is this kind of draconian legislation going to
either help financially or attract visitors? I can't understand
it. Can you enlighten me if this is a step toward that?
Mr Bolt:
No. As I said, if it is an attempt to water down the collection
to make it more popular, then you're defeating the purpose of
what a museum is. As far as the financial situation is concerned,
I am no expert. I'm an artist, I'm not an economist, but I have
done fundraising for various organizations. My local gallery in
Cobourg has struggled over the years because of lack of
government funding. I started out a few years ago with $64,000 a
year from the Ontario Arts Council and now they're down to
$8,000. I don't know what's happened to the McMichael gallery,
but if it's a matter of government money, then maybe they should
use some of their new-found wealth to prop it up.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Bolt, for coming in and making your
presentation.
DOUG WRIGHT
The Chair:
That takes us to our final presentation this afternoon, Mr Doug
Wright. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Doug
Wright: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for the privilege of being with you this
afternoon to speak to this legislation. Let me introduce myself
briefly. I was, for some 12 years, president of the University of
Waterloo-I'll explain the relevance of that in a moment-and
before that I spent a dozen years or so as a deputy minister,
serving the government of Ontario. My last two years, actually,
were as Deputy Minister of Culture and Recreation, before that
ministry was divided. It's only recently been more or less
reconstituted.
I believe that the
essential purpose of the legislation is to go back to the spirit
of the original undertaking the province gave to the McMichaels
when the original donation was made. I believe the integrity of
that is the centre of the issue. I don't think it's about
artistic freedom or anything else. I think that the importance of
that speaks to the credibility of government policy as it affects
donations for which our institutions-universities and galleries
and others-are so enormously dependent today.
I spent a lot of time as
president of the University of Waterloo soliciting donations. We
had often to give undertakings about the uses of the money. If a
government, as was done some years ago, changes the spirit and
letter of an undertaking, I think it prejudices the prospect for
further philanthropy. It undermines the credibility of the
capacity of public institutions to seek private support.
1750
I happened to be here
earlier when Mr Danby spoke and I agree entirely with him. I
think the central issue is the credibility of an undertaking,
once given. I believe that the decision that is implicit in the
proposed legislation will restore that trust and credibility, and
I think that precedent is extremely important for future
philanthropic donations. I'm aware of several major donations now
pending from individuals that I believe would be made less
credible by the failure to pass this legislation.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That certainly leaves us time for questions,
if you're prepared to take them. This time the rotation would be
to Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Wright, you must have been present when I
was reading the original mandate from 1965. Should I reread
it?
Mr Wright:
I'm sorry?
Mr
Marchese: You must have been present when I read out
earlier on the-
Mr Wright:
Oh yes, I'm sorry. I thought you meant I was somewhere in
1965.
Mr
Marchese: I just came from Italy three years after
that.
Mr Wright:
I was dean of engineering at the University of Waterloo in
1965.
Mr
Marchese: God bless. I'm reading the 1965 agreement: 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
was the agreement in
1965. How would you describe that agreement? What does it mean to
you?
Mr Wright:
I think it's fairly clear. But there are other features to that
legislation, including the roles of the McMichaels and so forth,
which are also central to the spirit of that original
agreement.
Mr
Marchese: No disagreement, except they want to return to
the spirit of the 1965 agreement, which I just read out to you.
The spirit of the 1965 agreement includes the Group of Seven,
plus three others, plus those designated by the advisory
committee to have made contributions to the development of
Canadian art. That, to me, means it could mean anybody else. It
could mean Inuit artists; it could mean aboriginal art-
Mr Wright:
As a matter of fact, it did.
Mr
Marchese: It did. They were included later on.
Mr Wright:
Yes.
Mr
Marchese: My assumption is that if you revert to the
spirit of what you're referring to and others are referring to,
it always assumes somehow that the spirit includes just the Group
of Seven.
Mr Wright:
No, I don't believe that.
Mr
Marchese: Right. It includes others, doesn't it? Who
else does it include? Do you have a sense of that?
Mr Wright:
No. Like some of the others, I don't believe in bureaucratic
control of the content of art.
Mr
Marchese: That's a good point. You don't believe in
bureaucratic control, but you believe in curatorial control,
don't you, or at least that the curatorial people have the
experience and expertise to make decisions about what works of
art-
Mr Wright:
To some degree.
Mr
Marchese: To some or to a great degree?
Mr Wright:
Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Some?
Mr Wright:
Some.
Mr
Marchese: Not a great degree?
Mr Wright:
I think there are very interesting questions about the role of
curators in our galleries and museums. There is a strange
tendency on the part of curators to secrete their collections and
allow the public only to see examples from time to time.
Mr
Marchese: That's an interesting view.
Mr Wright:
There are other collections where a much greater effort is made
to display a larger proportion of the total collection.
Mr
Marchese: That's fair, too. What this government wants
to do with Bill 112 is to set up an arts advisory committee-they
call it an "advisory committee," right? Although it's a misnomer,
it's wrong, because it does more than advise. This advisory
committee, made up of the two McMichaels plus three others named
by them, would actually have direct responsibility for
acquisitions and de-accessioning, including exhibition and
display. In effect, they become the curatorial group; not
advisory, but the curatorial group. They don't necessarily have
the curatorial experience. Don't you think that's wrong?
Mr Wright:
No.
Mr
Marchese: OK. I'm glad you were the president of the
University of Waterloo and the deputy minister of culture and
rec. Because I'm worried about those views. I really am. You and
I are obviously not in sync with what most people in the art
world would agree with. The people in museums and others would
say that this course is completely opposed to professional
practice elsewhere. In other words, it's wrong. But you obviously
don't think that's a problem.
Mr Wright:
I think that's a smokescreen for other issues of control.
The Chair:
Thank you. Mr Wright, thank you very much for taking the time to
make a presentation and sitting through this afternoon and for
taking the time to share your perception on this issue.
With that, the committee
stands adjourned until 3:30 on October 25th.
