BumfOnline

I got a chuckle out of this op-ed piece written by Bernard Poulin, the former president of the Canadian Institute of Portrait Artists, who makes an argument for the National Portrait Gallery to be constructed in Ottawa as opposed to the new EnCana Bow in downtown Calgary. There are many arguments for and against this innovative move which would be the first national museum located in Western Canada, if not out of Ottawa-Gatineau proper, and I'm not going to get into most of them. I will, however, not let most of M Poulin's concerns go unaddressed:

Trying to separate rumour from fact on this file, an NDP MP discovered that "access to information" means direct access to documents but not necessarily to content. The requested paperwork detailing the purported move of the Portrait Gallery of Canada to Calgary is almost completely blacked-out -- as if state secrets are at stake.

Why? What are the ramifications of these new portrait gallery plans? Why are we not allowed to know the details of this alleged deal between our government and Calgary's Encana Corporation?

Yes, the prime minister is conducting a black-ops on the future of the gallery and any prying eyes will immediately be burned out with hot pokers if the secrets are discovered. Or the government is still in the process of negotiating with EnCana or other partners and details won't be released until a preliminary deal is reached, as is done with most every other agreements our government makes. Either way, it's evil, I tell you!

I don't deny that Calgary is a superb city. It is even one of the great cities of Canada. It is more than highly capable of representing the unique creative impulses of its citizenry, its region and its province. But Calgary does not have the mandate of a national capital. Nor does Toronto, Montreal, St. John's or Winnipeg. Over and above being dangerous to individual artifacts, moving the Portrait Gallery of Canada is "nationally incorrect." This decision, if decision it be, renders regionalistic [sic] a national museum. No city should abscond with or (unilaterally and without consultation) have offered to it a national institution.

Well, then Calgary is not a superb city then, especially when municipal officials express interest in a "nationally incorrect" manoeuvre such as this? Don't these people know their place?

The art in the portrait gallery (the historic and cultural property of all Canadians) cannot be dispersed on a whim or be perceived as a private building's classy decor simply because the owner of that building offers the federal government money. Since when have our visual historic documents been up for grabs (for lease, purchase or gain of any kind) to the highest bidder?

Yes, in addition to geologic diagrams and maps of well-point locations, EnCana wishes to adorn its walls with historical portraits. That's why they're doing this: for aesthetic reasons.

In philanthropic terms the "generosity" of Encana Corporation's donation appears questionable. In art-value terms, the $30 million offered is a pittance, as the amount is less than the value of a dozen of our portrait gallery's most cherished possessions. As it stands, the face value of the amount of the Encana "donation" is sorely diminished in that it abets the cavalier dismissal of Canadian tax dollars already spent on the original portrait gallery project. The corporate largesse, therefore, would be more genuine had it been offered to defray the costs of the already-under-way gallery. If Encana's intent had been pure it would have been satisfied (as so many caring philanthropists before) with the portrait gallery naming a section of the institution the Encana Wing.

Considering how much money EnCana pays the government in annual taxes and royalties, the $30 million is indeed a pittance. Then again, no price is too high when you propose to build a structure using taxpayer dollars, one which is already running at twice the original budgetted cost. If M Poulin feels so strongly about this, perhaps he can propose to sell one of the gallery's "most cherished possessions", considering that without substantial funding -- EnCana's or otherwise -- Canadians won't ever be able to see them anyway.

But why should the Portrait Gallery of Canada be in Ottawa? Because Ottawa is a capital, and capitals have a national responsibility. A capital is a selected geographic environment that houses the main governmental structure of a unified group of varied peoples. And worldwide, all major symbols of a nation's achievements and individual greatness are celebrated in museums and galleries in a national capital. In more human terms, a capital is tantamount to being a town square where everyone from the different surrounding streets and boroughs gathers to be awed by their own kinship and to celebrate before the world that which makes them united.

Citizens "awed by their own kinship"? In Ottawa? Has this man ever witnessed Question Period?

No province or city in any part of this great country should trump or water down the capital of Canada in this mandate. Nationally and internationally, Ottawa is the symbolic centre of our Canadianism. Ottawa is to Canada what Paris is to France, London to Britain and Washington to the United States. Without a capital a country becomes nothing more than a collection of squabbling regions with less and less commonality to keep them linked.

A lot of good having Ottawa as our capital in preventing "nothing more than a collection of squabbling regions with less and less commonality to keep them linked". Ottawa is not Paris, London or Washington. Nor is it Rome, Tokyo, Moscow, Madrid or Singapore. It's not even Dublin.

Ottawa is a compromise, an Anyone-But choice by Queen Victoria so that neither Toronto nor Quebec City would feel slighted when picking the young nation's new capital. That's it. There is nothing else that makes Ottawa special. Nothing. While Canadians gather there for politics and lobbying and bureaucratic goings-on, there is no non-political reason to go there and nothing to do, nothing but checking out museums and the occasional Belinda sighting.

And Ottawa has museums. Too many, by my mind. If anything, saying Ottawa needs another museums like saying the Butchart Gardens need another rose bush. If a family does choose to go to our capital on vacation in order to see our insitutions, they will see, perhaps in this order, Parliament, the Museum of Civilization, the National Art Gallery, and the Rideau Canal. In fact, wouldn't it make more sense to have the National Portrait Gallery be situated in a city in which it would not be dominated by other national attractions?

We must stop seeing Ottawa as a municipality like all others. It is not.

Don't worry, we don't.

Love it or hate it, [...]

We hate it.

... Ottawa the capital is the symbol of the grandeur that we are in Canada and the collective will to thrive that we share.

God help us.

If we fail to perceive our capital in this way, we Canadians will very quickly lose much more than a museum. We will lose our sense of balance and place.

You've lost me, M Poulin.

In the end, any and all unilateral decisions to divide us (by vengefully stripping the capital of its symbolism) serve only to widen the gap between our regions and to erode the soul of one of the greatest democracies in the world. It is therefore crucial that the symbols of our continuity and unity not become mere scraps in the wind.

After 40 years painting portraits in Canada and internationally -- striving to be the best cultural ambassador that I can be -- I find it disgusting that the powerful and historically significant statements of my profession are being used to divide my country.

What I find disgusting is a cultural elitist who insists that sharing our culture to those who cannot afford (and, really, have no reason) to visit Ottawa is an affront to national unity. It is not; We are a large and diverse country, spread apart by language, geography and culture. I would argue that an even more dangerous situation for national unity is for western Canadians to give away their hard-earned tax dollars on national treasures and, whilst stuck in the hinterland, are left with nothing but platitudinous op-eds from the the likes of M Poulin.

Am I exaggerating the importance of this unilateral and belligerent decision? I don't think so. Are the concomitant political backroom games being played with our "visual historic documents" that dangerous? Definitely. Does culture weigh that much in the survival of Canada? I can only answer this question with another: Are Canadian unity and the symbols of our identity still important to us? If they are, we Canadians should say so and stop this move, along with the numerous other decisions that suddenly exist before our eyes without parliamentary approval.

But if we no longer consider the Canada our ancestors created important, then we should be honest enough to tell our children that we don't give a damn about our past, we don't care about our present, and we could care less about their future.

I'll ask M Poulin whether or not he cares that his fellow citizens, those who do not enjoy the same privileged access to our national institutions in which he has been accustomed to, might feel insulted that their community cannot be trusted to represent the nation by hosting a national museum.

The simple fact of the matter is, Ottawa is a far way to go to check out such a museum, and by beginning a process of having other national institutions spread out over our vast dominion, with private contributions, the national symbols will be brought to our citizens, rather than the other way around.

But thanks for your support, M Poulin. Lots of luck finding a reasonably-priced home in Calgary.