Bill C-49 (Historical)

Canadian Museum of History Act

An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Museums Act to establish a corporation called the Canadian Museum of History that replaces the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It also sets out the purpose, capacity and powers of the Canadian Museum of History and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Report Stage

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act.

The purpose of Bill C-49 is to refocus and reposition the Canadian Museum of Civilization and amend the Museums Act to change the name and legislative mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Since 1990, the museum's mandate has been:

...to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour...

Bill C-49 changes this mandate. In concrete terms, the changes to the museum's mandate will remove the phrase “critical understanding” and replace it with a general idea of understanding, and replace “human cultural achievements and human behaviour” with a simplistic concept, “Canada's history and identity”.

In short, these changes could detract from the diversity of the experiences that characterize our history, for instance, the effects of colonization on first nations, gender inequality, marginalization based on ethnicity, and so on.

In addition, the sudden and surreptitious closure of the Canadian Postal Museum shows a lack of transparency—yes, once again—even though the mail is an integral part of our history. While the changes set out in Bill C-49 might seem trivial, this closure and the Conservatives' approach to Canadian history make me wary of other nasty surprises.

I believe this museum has a winning formula. It is often a must-see destination on any school trip to Ottawa. This museum touches the imagination of all of the youth who visit it. I am thinking of the Canadian Children's Museum, in particular, whose central theme is “the great adventure”. This museum gives younger visitors an opportunity to travel the world. Exhibit themes promote intercultural understanding. The Canadian Children’s Museum has grown steadily since its inception.

The museum has welcomed over 8 million visitors since 1989, with an average annual attendance of 500,000. It is committed to the promotion of intercultural understanding among children and improving cultural, social, and educational opportunities for children. I recall having visited the museum myself on many occasions and having a remarkable experience every time.

Looking beyond the Canadian Children's Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. That is quite something. I wonder why the Conservatives are changing its mandate. Is it really necessary to change a winning formula? What if I were the owner of an ice cream shop, chocolate was my bestselling flavour and then one day I decided to make strawberry ice cream instead. I think that that would be a very poor marketing decision and that I would be taking a risk.

Dr. Lorne Holyoak, president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, said:

You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck...It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

Once again, I believe that the government is making decisions without thinking about the consequences. I believe that this is part of an effort to promote Conservative symbols: attachment to the monarchy, promotion of Conservative values, and so forth.

Furthermore, the changes will be costly. The administrative cost of changing the name and logo is estimated at $500,000 on top of the more than $400,000 that has already been spent. It makes no sense. I wonder who this will really benefit. It seems to me that there are more important priorities to be dealt with.

The private sector will be solicited for its support. We are not against involving the private sector but, in recent years, things have gotten out of hand at federal museums. For example, almost all exhibit halls at the Canadian Museum of Nature have been named after sponsors in the oil and mineral sectors and, in 2011, an exhibit at the Canada Science and Technology Museum was changed as a result of external pressure.

Of course, private funding is useful for the development of museums, but it must not influence their content, especially when it comes to a national history museum.

When I think of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, my mind turns to the hundreds of thousands of children who go on school excursions to the museum every year. My son has visited the museum several times with his school. He always comes home with lots of stories. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a gold mine of interesting information for young people of all ages, and for adults, too.

The other important thing that disappoints me about this bill is the change in direction of the museum’s mission. In fact, the proposal is to remove research and collections from the museum’s mission, which were contained in the first paragraph of its initial mandate.

The staff who work in the research and collections departments will be “reorganized”, a term that is not really reassuring to museum employees. It will mean that research and collections will take a back seat to exhibition planning and will no longer be based on the work and priorities of museologists. This represents a major shift in the museum’s mission.

The government has no business sticking its nose in these matters. Politicians are neither historians nor researchers, nor are they museologists. Perhaps some members are, but they are a rare commodity. The Conservatives are the ones thinking about making these changes. They are meddling in the museum's affairs.

Why not leave it up to the museologists and their interlocutors, including the first nations, to define the museum's mandate and content.

I know how important it is to have employees who are motivated and passionate about their work to present the museum.

In my region, the Forges du Saint-Maurice are grappling with major cutbacks. This year, tourists and visitors to the forges will no longer get to enjoy a dynamic presentation by guide–interpreters. Instead, they will have to read signs set up to replace staff who have been laid off. It is really sad to see a historic and tourist site of such great significance lose its value because the government is imposing its own ideology.

I would also like to draw members’ attention to another important problem arising from these changes. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons in November 2012. We have not yet had third reading in the House. It has not yet gone to the Senate. Yet I noticed on the weekend that the minister was already making announcements as if Bill C-49 had received royal assent.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced a partnership agreement between the Manitoba Museum and the future Canadian museum of history. I repeat: the future Canadian museum of history. It has not yet been approved by parliamentarians.

We in the NDP want the museum's current mission to be maintained. We are asking that the budget proposed for this transformation be invested instead in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history.

The government has to stop doing away with things that enhance our knowledge of history, in particular research and the protection of historic sites.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-49, which would establish the Canadian museum of history.

A lot has been said in previous debates about the need to ensure that the research capacity of the new museum would be as strong as the research capacity of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I think we can all agree that research would be an important aspect of the activities of the new museum and its professional staff.

Research, either ongoing or related to a particular project, is at the heart of what great museums do and it would be at the heart of what the Canadian museum of history would do. In fact, the standing committee heard from Mr. Mark O’Neill, President and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, that in consultation with academics across Canada, the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in its history. Mr. O'Neill indicated that this strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next ten years, confirming that the research strategy would be used after the adoption of Bill C-49 and the transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian museum of history.

I have confidence in the dedication and professionalism of the museum and its staff. They will continue to do the work of research that needs to be done in order to execute the mandate of the museum and provide a valuable service to the Canadian public.

The museum's research strategy, developed in consultation with experts from within the museum and across the country, will guide research at the new museum. I can assure all hon. members that the absence of the word "critical" in the description of the museum's mandate will have no impact on the research capabilities it would have. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the absence of the word “critical” may be a bit of a relief to some of the museum's researchers. Some members may ask why. Let me ask them how they would define “critical research”? The current text of the Museums Act does not define it. Would anyone suggest that, in the absence of the word in the text proposed by Bill C-49, the highly professional staff undertaking important research at the museum would somehow now abandon their professional ethics and judgment? I certainly do not believe so.

That is not what Bill C-49 intends and it is not what would happen. We would simply be allowing the new museum and the competent professionals who work there to have the freedom and flexibility to determine what research is necessary and how that research should be done.

If we are still concerned about this, let us look at what has been done elsewhere with some of the great museums of the world. The act establishing the Smithsonian Institute in Washington does not mention that research has to be "critical research". It talks about the increase and diffusion of knowledge across the country. Moreover, the word research is not even mentioned in the British Museum Act.

Let us also look at the modern of Te Papa, the groundbreaking museum in New Zealand established in 1992. Its founding legislation simply says that among its principal functions, the museum is to conduct research into any matter relating to its collections or associated areas of interest and to assist others in such research. Does it describe what kind of research? No. It leaves that to the highly trained professionals involved, and that is what the legislation should do.

Enlightenment and communication are central concepts governing the German Historical Museum in Berlin, a museum with impressive permanent and temporary exhibitions whose mandate and activities have been assessed and modernized over time. The absence of the word "research" in its mandate in no way diminishes the ability of the museum to carry out valuable research.

This museum has a long history of research. Research was carried out in the late 1800s, when the museum was part of the Geological Survey of Canada. The names Marius Barbeau and Diamond Jenness come to mind, both researchers who were known and respected around the world. Research was carried out when the museum was called the Museum of Man. The names Dr. J.V. Wright and Dr. William Taylor come to mind. In fact, Dr. Taylor, an archaeologist, was the director of the Museum of Man for many years.

Research continues to be carried out by the Museum of Civilization. I note that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard testimony last week from Dr. David Morrison, director of research and content for the new Canadian history hall. The research strategy recently developed by the Canadian Museum of Civilization is evidence of the central role that research will play in the Canadian museum of history. The research strategy includes subjects such as the changing north and aboriginal histories.

In Bill C-49, nothing will diminish the role of research at the Canadian museum of history. The capacity and power to conduct research can be found in clause 9 of this bill, just as it can be found in the power and capacity sections of the Museums Act. The absence of the word “research” in the purpose of the new museum does not reflect a disregard for the research function of the new museum. It merely reflects modern drafting standards, standards that define a broad overarching purpose, in other words, what the museum can do, complemented by a more detailed capacities and powers statement, in other words, how the museum will carry out that purpose.

In closing, I know that we are all anxious to ensure that the proud tradition of research in the Canadian Museum of Civilization will not be diminished in any way by Bill C-49 and the establishment of the Canadian museum of history. I know that this will not happen because I have faith in the professionalism and expertise of the museum and its staff.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, I know he is very involved in his riding. He listens to the residents of his riding, and he probably has a number of suggestions himself about what could be done with the money invested in changing the name of the museum.

I would also like to come back to another funding-related matter. In fact, Bill C-49 also opens the door to private sector support. I am not opposed to private sector support, but how is this going to happen? This is an important question, but it is not actually clear in Bill C-49. Will we have the Molson or Pepsi exhibition hall? We do not know. Will the private sector have more powers and be more in evidence in the museum? If so, in what way? Before supporting a bill like this, it is important to know what tangible form this is going to take.

I am not saying that we oppose investment from the private sector. What I am saying is that the bill is vague in this regard. It is important to ask the question before passing a bill like this.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49. I want to begin by reading the current mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Its current mandate is:

...to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of, and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.

It is rather lengthy. It has long sentences with a lot of big words. Nevertheless, I wanted to read it because the debate on the museum centres on its mission. There are may factors at play in this bill.

Nonetheless, today's debate is not on the importance of Canada's history or on the people who may or may not have played a key role in our country and our identity. The debate is on the museum's current mandate and what the government wants to do with it.

Bill C-49 proposes new wording for the mandate. This could have major repercussions on future exhibits at the museum, its priorities, and how all that will be accomplished.

I will also read the mandate proposed in Bill C-49. If the bill passes, the mandate would be:

...to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.

Does that mandate seem so bad? No, it does not. This new mandate proposed in the bill seems very worthwhile. However, compared to the old mandate, one might be concerned about what the new wording leaves out.

For example, what happened to critical understanding? It is now just understanding. Why is that? What was the rationale behind dropping the word “critical” in the expression “critical understanding”? Honestly, it is a question worth asking.

Is it because of a desire to dismiss criticism of our nation’s history? Perhaps, perhaps not; there is no explanation. Yet, when it comes to deciding to strike a word from the wording of the museum's mandate, this is no small matter. We need answers and we also need to understand what impact these changes might have on the direction the museum takes.

Another example of something that has been overlooked or distorted is the focus on social history and cultural achievements. The Canadian Museum of Civilization focuses heavily on social history and cultural achievements. It provides a critical perspective by including elements from outside Canada to compare and assess what is observed, take an interest in it, and develop various perspectives that differ from those based on our own Canadian history.

Under the new mandate proposed in Bill C-49, there is a far greater emphasis on the figures who shaped Canada’s history, and a far lesser focus on social history and cultural achievements. It is not as if the focus is no longer there at all. However, what I mean to say is that the wording was chosen for a reason and will have a bearing on how the mandate is interpreted.

It is, therefore, crucial that members be aware of the real impact that the choice of wording will have on the new terms of reference for museum exhibitions, and on the freedom museum curators have to carry out projects that they consider important and relevant.

I would also like to talk about how this bill ended up before us. In fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage boasted that the museum was his idea. I like the Minister of Heritage. He is, undoubtedly, a very good person and certainly comes up with very creative and ingenious ideas.

However, a museum's orientation should not be determined solely by the revelations of one minister or another. Are they aware that we have museologists, museum experts? Do they know we have historians? University researchers have extensive knowledge in the field and would probably have had a lot to contribute to the development of Bill C-49. However, the minister himself says that changing the museum's name and purpose was his idea. Congratulations!

It seems to me, however, that it is critically important to consult the experts who know about museum administration, exhibition management, the public's interest in the museum's artifacts, and history and how to convey it before announcing this kind of thing. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not a teacher, museologist or historian, hence the importance of not simply rushing to convert a spontaneous idea into a bill. There were public consultations, but they were held only once the bill was introduced, its wording developed and the museum's new name announced. It was not until the minister's idea materialized that we could tell him what we thought about it.

Will we see any significant changes? Why were these consultations not held before Bill C-49 was introduced? This is unfortunate. It undermines our confidence in this bill and in the approach adopted by the Conservatives. A preliminary consultation would have shown us that they take the opinions of Canadians and museology experts seriously. However, that was not the case, and, in my humble opinion, that undermines the credibility of the process and the very basis for these changes.

When a politician announces changes to the name and purpose of a museum, what is his aim if it is not political? We have challenged many government announcements of this kind because of this partisan angle. And this is another one. This is not necessarily what will happen, but our fears in that regard are definitely warranted.

A newspaper article related the opinion of the previous president and CEO, Victor Rabinovich, who deplores the fact that the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization has been dropped. In his view, it has been the most successful brand name in Canada's museum sector, "a brand that is known and respected throughout the world." This man, who was a key player at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has his doubts about the museum's name change and has proposed a compromise. Will he be heard? I very much doubt it, but only time will tell.

Now let us talk about priorities. Right now, the Conservative government is boasting about making Canadian history its priority. However, if this were really the case, would so many archaeologists be laid off and muzzled? Would there be so many archivists and librarians being muzzled and laid off? Would national historic sites be abandoned because they do not have the necessary funding or resources? Parks Canada and Library and Archives Canada are also suffering.

Frankly, if Canadian history were really a priority for the Conservatives, would 80% of the Parks Canada archaeologists be laid off? Would the deputy head of Library and Archives Canada, who was appointed by the Conservatives, be resigning because of spending scandals and the Conservatives’ poor management? All of these issues make us wonder.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my opinion: this debate is not about whether or not we think our country’s history is important, but rather about the museum’s new name and mandate. In fact, we can do both: we can keep our Canadian Museum of Civilization as it is and at the same time find other ways of promoting Canadian history.

Why should we change a winning combination? The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most successful museum in Canada. Let us think twice before we change it.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, an act to create the Canadian museum of history.

World-class museums are widely respected centres of independent and inspired thinking. The curatorial staff members in these institutions are provided with the freedom to interpret the artifacts in their collections in a way that promotes independent thought and dialogue.

Our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. To maintain the reputation of our museums as world-class museums, their experts must be given the freedom to present a narrative as they see fit. That is why it is imperative that museums remain independent of political influence.

Subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act makes it clear that our national museums operate independently of political sphere. Subsection 27(1) clearly states:

No directive shall be given to a museum...with respect to cultural activities, including

...the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities;

...its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and

...research....

Bill C-49 would not change the arm's-length nature of the new museum, nor would it change the governance structure that determines the organization's guiding principles.

As is the case with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the board of trustees of the Canadian museum of history would be “responsible for the fulfillment of the purposes and the management of the business, activities and affairs of the corporation”.

The mechanism would ensure that this arm's-length institution remains an independent and respected centre for research and for learning.

The board of directors of the Canadian Museum of Civilization uses five key objectives as its guiding principles. These principles are:

Knowledge

...focus on the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

Authenticity

...communicating accurate information which is balanced and in context.

Coherence

...aim to be consistent, united in purpose and easily accessible.

Choice and Respect

...we can never include all themes, all perspectives, or all proposed artifacts. Our choices are informed by respect....

Canadian Perspectives

...present Canadian contexts, comments, or reactions on subjects of wider significance.

In addition, let me bring to the attention of my colleagues, who have expressed concern about the independence of our national museums, the existence of a document developed by the Canadian Museums Association and the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization.

In 2004, these widely respected organizations collaborated to develop the “Roles and Responsibilities of Museum Boards of Trustees”.

Museums across Canada have been encouraged to adopt these guidelines and use them as a reference point for a board's roles and responsibilities when dealing with issues related to museum policies and procedures.

An important statement is made at the very beginning of these guidelines:

All board members are fiduciaries who have the museum's collections, property, premises and resources in their care as assets in trust for present and future generations.

Clearly, this is a significant legal obligation that board members take seriously. They are in place to ensure the responsible stewardship of the museum, not to accommodate the wishes of members of Parliament.

The Canadian Museums Association's ethics guidelines speak quite clearly to the responsibilities of the board of trustees:

Whatever its formation, it is the legal entity that is accountable to the public and to the museum community for the policy, financing and administration of the museum.

It is evident that the board is not accountable to politicians.

The ethics guidelines also mention two key public trust responsibilities for museums: stewardship and public service. The guidelines state:

The trust of stewardship requires museums to acquire, document and preserve collections in accordance with institutional policies, to be accountable for them, and to pass them on to future generations of the public in good condition.

The trust of public service requires museums to create and advance not only knowledge, but more importantly, understanding, by making the collections...available to all the communities served by the museum. To this end, museums seek to be public focal points for learning, discussion and development, and to ensure equality of opportunity for access.

When we speak specifically of the case of boards of trustees for crown corporations, we can also turn to the Financial Administration Act, or the FAA, to provide very clear information on the responsibilities of boards of directors. Especially relevant to the topic, we see in section 109 of the FAA that “the board of directors of a Crown corporation is responsible for the management of the businesses, activities and other affairs of the corporation”. This is how we would ensure that the Canadian museum of history would operate freely and independently.

With all these measures in place, one must wonder why there are lingering doubts as to whether the Canadian museum of history would be able to maintain its independence when it came to its quality programming. Clearly, the museum would be equipped with many controls to ensure that it operated as it should.

Our government will continue to play a legislative role when it comes to our national museums, but when it comes to putting that legislation into operation, responsibility for content and exhibitions rests with the administrators, the curators, conservators, researchers, the board of trustees and all those who have helped solidify the reputation of Canada's museums as world class.

The management and staff of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are well respected and they have built a world-class museum. Nothing in Bill C-49 would change how the museum operates. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to support this very important legislation.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. After all, Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the foreshortened debate on Bill C-49. After only one hour of debate, the Conservatives decided it was time to shorten the debate even further by imposing time allocation.

The minister referred to this legislation as having been on the books for eight and a half months. We are not in control of the agenda; the other side is in control of the agenda. If it chose not to bring it forward over the past eight and a half months, that is not our fault. The minister might want to speak to the government House leader to find out why it has taken so long for the bill to come forward.

Members opposite keep saying that we are creating a museum. This bill would not create a museum. It would destroy one museum and out of its ashes build another. It is a good idea. We on this side think a Canadian historical museum would be a good thing to have, but we should not destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which has an entirely different mandate and an entirely different purpose than a Canadian museum of history.

The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is:

—to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behavior by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.

This is a very broad and ambitious goal and the museum has met some of that goal over the course of the past 23 years that it has been in existence.

I have been there. It is an absolutely amazing place. What it puts forward is way more than just history. It is in fact about the culture and civilization of not just Canada, but of many places in the world, and of Canada not just the country, but Canada as it existed before the white man arrived. This is also in that existing human cultural achievements.

The new mandate of the Canadian history museum is

—to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.

I emphasize the word “Canada's” history and identity because we now lose the notion of civilization. Canada did not exist officially until 1867. Does this mean we are only to discuss things that happened from 1867 forward, that the contributions of the fact that this continent was peopled by native North Americans long before any of us Europeans ever arrived on the scene? Is that not to be considered as part of Canada's history? It is hard to tell from the statement of mandate of what the intention of this history is.

We have in the Canadian Museum of Civilization an internationally regarded icon of something more than just history, and it is associated with the war museum. In France, there is no museum of war. There is a museum of peace and it too is internationally regarded as a place to discuss something other than historical artifacts leading to war, or historical art leading to war or whatever wants to be discussed. That notion of discussing peace lends itself to an international recognition. The notion of discussing civilization lends us to an international recognition, which I fear we will lose by focusing on only history and only the history of Canada.

In terms of the amendments that were proposed by the various bodies in the foreshortened again committee stage, one of the ones that the minister referred to earlier, was the suggestion that there should be curatorial independence. Curatorial independence means that the museum, whether it is the Museum of Civilization or the museum of history, should be in a position to decide itself what it wants to display, how it wants to display it and whether it should take on controversial displays.

The minister said today in the House, “As the minister, I have never once, nor could I ever interfere with the decision of a museum to put on an exhibit or not”. When he said that, I could not believe my ears, because it was just a few short months ago that an Ottawa museum, the Museum of Science and Technology, put on an exhibit that the minister said, “The exhibit does not fit within its mandate. Its content cannot be defended and is insulting to taxpayers”.

The minister will stand and argue that he did not actually tell the museum not to run it. When a minister gets up and publicly states that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers, he is questioning the curatorial independence of that museum. To stand here in the House today and suggest he has never done it is beggars belief.

When the museum put on that display, it was clearly going to be controversial, a display that the museum itself and its curators decided was important and within its mandate, but the minister interfered.

Is that making a statement publicly that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers somehow not interfering in the mandate of the museum or in the ability of the museum's curators to have curatorial independence? In my view it does. Whether the minister actually pulled the display off the shelves with his own hands is not really the question. The question is whether the minister publicly went against the decision of the museum itself. That is what we, on this side of the House, want to see more strongly placed in legislation as we get the opportunity because of the events of the past year.

The third point I will make is the concerns we have about creating a museum of history at the same time the government has gone about rewriting history. For example, even today, when the minister said that he never did that, yet he did a year ago, is rewriting history. It is suggesting that it did not actually happen.

However, we are concerned we have a government that wants Canadians to be more focused on battles, on wars, on the War of 1812, on the relationship with the British Crown, on the battles that Canada has been in since Confederation and maybe a little before, because we have been talking about the War of 1812.

Twitter uses hashtags to get people interested in a topic, and the hashtag is, “HarperHistory”. That hashtag was created because the Prime Minister started to rewrite history in the House of Commons in question period by making erroneous allegations about the NDP. That hashtag, “HarperHistory” resurfaced again in the past few weeks when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage decided to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects of Canadian history.

There was a breakdown, a comparison of relevant standards of courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions and there were considerable numbers of people responding to the hashtag, “HarperHistory” who were—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-49, which proposes amendments to the Museums Act in order to create the Canadian Museum of History. Today, I would like to discuss the rich and long history of the museum and its transformation over the years. After all, as we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

The institutional origins of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are older than Confederation, dating back to 1841 when Queen Victoria granted £1,500 for the “...creation of the Geological and Natural History Survey of the Province of Canada...”. I would like to remind the House that the Geological Survey of Canada, the GSC, was officially founded in 1856, after the Province of Canada had passed an act enabling the GSC to establish a geological museum open to the public. The museum was originally located on James Street in Montreal, where scholars and scientists collected geological, archaeological and biological material. In 1864, the Province of Canada passed an act making the Geological Survey and its work a permanent provision.

In 1877, an act of Parliament ensured the continued existence of the Geological Survey, making it a part of the Department of the Interior. The GSC's official mandate had been broadened to include botanical, zoological and ethnographic specimens, traditions, languages and artifacts. It also suggested that the GSC and its museum be moved from Montreal to Ottawa.

In 1881, the GSC and its museum moved to a former luxury hotel at the corner of Sussex and George streets in downtown Ottawa. The museum attracted some 9,549 visitors in its first year, far more than it had in Montreal. It was in 1890 that the government passed an act making the Geological Survey a department within the dominion.

Construction of the new museum began in 1906. By 1907, the GSC became a branch of the newly created Department of Mines. The GSC museum received approval to add anthropology studies to its official mandate. In the spring of 1910, a new anthropology division was established under the direction of Edward Sapir, which included two sections in charge of archaeological and ethnological fieldwork. By the autumn of that same year, the GSC and its museum occupied the new Victoria Memorial Museum building on Metcalfe Street here in Ottawa.

When fire destroyed most of the Parliament buildings in 1916, the decision was made to house the Parliament of Canada in the Victoria Memorial Museum building. The GSC collections were put in storage until 1920 when the new Parliament buildings were constructed.

In January 1950, the GSC became part of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and the National Museum joined the Department of Resources and Development. The GSC and the National Museum then remained together in the Victoria Memorial Museum building. By 1956, the National Museum of Canada had been subdivided into two branches: natural history and human history.

I would like to also remind this House that in 1968, under the national Museums Act, the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada was established. The museum's human history branch became the National Museum of Man, and the natural history branch became the National Museum of Natural Sciences. The new National Museum of Man continued to be housed in the Victoria Memorial Museum building on Metcalfe Street. In 1969, the Victoria Memorial Museum building was closed for renovations and museum staff and collections were moved to temporary locations throughout Ottawa.

In July 1980, the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada was transferred from the Department of the Secretary of State to the Department of Communications. The transfer was made in recognition of the increasingly close links between culture and communications.

In 1982, the Canadian government announced its intention to house a National Museum of Man in a new building in Hull, Quebec. In 1986, the National Museum of Man was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the CMC.

In 1988, the National Postal Museum became a division of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the majority of the material history collection and staff were transferred. Other parts of the collection, including pieces of art, were transferred to the National Archives of Canada.

In 1989, the Canadian Museum of Civilization opened a new facility in Hull, Quebec. Internationally recognized as one of the world's modern architectural wonders, the complex was designed by architect Douglas Cardinal to reflect enduring features of the Canadian landscape. The world's largest indoor collection of totem poles is housed in the facility's stunning Grand Hall which has also been the site of numerous high-profile receptions for visiting heads of state.

In 1990, the federal government passed the Museums Act. The museum became a crown corporation and officially changed its name to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation which came into effect on July 1, 1990.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the subject matter of many CMC exhibitions, current and past, has been Canadian history. Bill C-49 does not represent a massive change. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of History merely indicates an unequivocal focus on Canadian history, something that I know will be done well for many years to come. It is important to note the historical change to the museum, because the name and mandate of a national museum is nothing new.

The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and that presents our country's treasures to the world.

I remain ready and able to take any questions or comments that any member may wish to pose at this time.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-49, which proposes amendments to the Museums Act to create the Canadian museum of history.

I could talk about all the wonderful things that Bill C-49 would do. However, given some of the misleading information being spread by the opposition, I would like to take the time to talk about what Bill C-49 would not do.

The bill would make a number of necessary changes to the section dealing with the current Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation to allow it to become the Canadian museum of history. However, one section of the Museums Act that would not change is the section that ensures the independence of the national museums, which is subsection 27(1).

Subsection 27(1) says that no directive shall be given to a museum with respect to cultural activities, including the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities; activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and research related to those activities.

The legal protection afforded to all national museums is comprehensive and includes the ability to conduct research. The independence of all the national museums has been guaranteed by law in the most comprehensive manner possible.

This is the case for all national museums. It is the case for the Canadian Museum of Civilization and it would continue to be the case with the Canadian museum of history.

The phrase “arm's length” is more than a concept. It is specific, it is comprehensive and it is the law. Bill C-49 does not propose to change section 27 of the Museums Act.

We all know that, from time to time, museums, including our national museums, present exhibitions that challenge and that arouse debate. That is the mark of a great museum.

Everyone has an opinion. That is normal. From time to time, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has expressed a personal opinion about an exhibition presented by one of our national museums. That is his right. What the Museums Act prohibits is political interference in decisions related to cultural activities. Bill C-49 would not change that.

Yet, there are still concerns about the curatorial independence of the Canadian museum of history. It has been proposed that we amend the bill to specify that a particular minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and a particular government department, Canadian Heritage, could not infringe on the new museum's curatorial independence.

As we have said before, such an amendment is unnecessary and redundant because comprehensive independence already exists in the law. More importantly, this kind of amendment could have unintended consequences.

Subsection 27(1) ensures the independence of all national museums. The addition of a clause that would apply only to the new museum could call into question, or even appear to diminish by comparison, the independence of the other national museums that fall under the act. In other words, all the national museums would be independent, but one would be more independent than the others.

By singling out a particular minister and a particular department, does that somehow create the impression that others are somehow now being given the option to infringe on the independence of the museums?

As I have already said, the amendment in question was proposed in good faith, and I am sure that none of the possible results I have described were intended. However, this shows that drafting legislation is a really tricky thing. We must consider the wording in legislation very carefully. That is the job of legislative drafters and jurilinguists, professionals trained to watch for the type of unintended consequences I just described.

The independence of the Canadian museum of history would be assured under the existing subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act. Intervention by the government in its activities would be prohibited by law. The new museum would table its annual report in Parliament as a crown corporation, as is the case with all the national museums. It would be accountable to Parliament.

Let us consider the highly qualified professional staff of the museum. There would be specialists who have dedicated their careers to a particular field, whether it be archeology, ethnology, history, folklore or museology. As such, they would also be answerable to their peers. To suggest that, up until now, they have acted independently of government and that with the adoption of Bill C-49 they would suddenly develop feet of clay would be unfair. The idea that we might be seen as calling into question the integrity of the men and women who work at the museum is something I know we all want to avoid.

The Museums Act will continue to guarantee the independence of the national museums and it would guarantee the independence of the Canadian museum of history. Let us support that long-standing legal protection as it currently exists.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Above all else, Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasure to the world. I am calling on all my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-49 and support promoting and increasing Canadians' accessibility to our shared heritage.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused about the point of the government member's question. There was no demand for a Canadian museum of history before Bill C-49 was introduced.

Our offices were not contacted by large numbers of constituents who felt that the Canadian Museum of Civilization absolutely had to be replaced by a Canadian museum of history. That was a government decision.

The fact that people in Winnipeg, Vancouver or Montreal supported or opposed the change at meetings or conferences organized by the government to promote the idea is no surprise. In fact, if any idea is proposed, some people will support it, while others will oppose it.

Consequently, it is utterly false to say that there has been any popular demand to create this museum. There was no specific demand by Canadians for such a museum.

I obviously want to know more about the history of Winnipeg and about the artifacts that the museums and organizations in Winnipeg, Montreal and Vancouver have. That is why there are travelling exhibitions.

The Sea Museum in Rimouski commemorates the Battle of the Atlantic and the sinking of the Empress of Ireland. Exhibits and historical artifacts from that museum travel across the country. One exhibition was at the Canadian Museum of Civilization last week. It will now travel to Vancouver, Toronto and other cities. There are already mechanisms in place that enable us to share Canadian history.

I do not think that there is any justification for changing the purpose of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and turning it into the Canadian Museum of History.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

As this bill has progressed through the House and through committee, there has been much discussion and debate about the specific language used in the bill. Every change to the language has been examined for confirmation that nothing in this bill could interfere with curatorial independence, reduce the research abilities of the new museum or end the ability of the museum to manage and maintain its collections.

It is important to understand that none of the changes to the clauses describing the capacity and powers of the museum are particularly new. Instead, changes have been made to ensure consistency with modern drafting standards, including clear, straightforward and understandable language, concordance in understanding between the English and French and language that is as non-restrictive as possible.

Legislation is drafted in both official languages, and both languages have equal validity under the law. They must therefore be interpreted in parallel. For this reason, many small changes, often the change from “and” to “or” or vice versa, were made to ensure concordance between the English and French versions.

The language used in Bill C-49 is, for the most part, not new language. It is completely consistent with the language used to create the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, the most recent amendments to the Museums Act.

It is clear, straightforward and understandable language with concordance in understanding between the English and French language that is non-restrictive. Legislation is drafted in both official languages.

It is important to remember that the Museums Act was drafted almost a quarter century ago. The drafting conventions in 1990 where quite different from what they are today.

Purpose statements drafted for the national museums in 1990 tended to include not just the purpose of the museum but also language related to how that purpose could be carried out. Over time, the purpose statements have evolved to provide language that keeps as broad a lens as possible.

It is left to the section of legislation dealing with the powers of the museum to list the possibilities for how to carry out the purpose. The purpose statements for the national museums are now drafted to ensure that the capacity and powers of the museums are as broad as possible, that the language is more focused and that the mandate does not unduly restrict the activities of the museums. In other words, decisions on how to implement the mandate are made by museum professionals and experts.

As has been pointed out many times, the museums' ability and even responsibility to carry out research is addressed under powers and capacities and is quite clear. The president of the museum, Mark O'Neill, could not have been clearer. In his presentation to the standing committee, he said that research will remain a key function of the museum.

In fact, Mr. O'Neill announced that the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation has recently, in consultation with academics across the country, developed a research strategy, the first in its history. That strategy will guide the research activities of that museum over the next 10 years.

Mr. O'Neill also confirmed that the strategy will remain in place when the museum is transformed into the Canadian museum of history. Nothing in the revised purpose of this museum will in any way diminish the research capacity of the museum, nor will it interfere with the curatorial independence of the new museum.

Research at the Canadian museum of history will continue to be carried out by qualified, competent researchers as it has been carried out at the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I also have confidence in the management and board of trustees at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am sure that they will continue to guide the corporation through its transformation into the Canadian museum of history.

I would also like to suggest to my colleagues that we should pass this bill, create the new Canadian museum of history and let the museum get on with its business, the business of creating Canada's newest national museum.

If I may, I will take a minute to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, who announced last week important new initiatives to promote Canadian history, including the Government of Canada's history awards to recognize outstanding students and teachers who promote excellence in the study of history. I had the opportunity to attend that very important event, and I know that it was well received by many of the people there.

The minister also announced the strengthening of programs at Canadian Heritage to improve funding for local and national organizations to promote Canadian history in their communities.

In particular, I note that the terms and conditions of the museums assistance program will be modified to remove barriers to the circulation of museum history exhibitions interprovincially and to assist small museums in borrowing objects and exhibitions from the Canadian museum of history. This is good news for the small history museums that can be found in every corner of the country. There are many of these in my riding of Leeds—Grenville. These museums will now be able to receive assistance to borrow objects and exhibitions from the new museum and will also be able to access funding to develop exhibitions of local and regional interest that will travel within a province.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-49. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, where Canada's early history still lives today, we are looking forward to this anniversary. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. Passing the bill would be an important step in moving forward the creation of the Canadian museum of history.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech.

He seems to know what he is talking about, since he has done a lot of work in the arts. As he mentioned, he has spent much of his life telling our stories. That is basically the role of museums, as we know.

With regard to the name change, as well as the change to the museum's mandate, I think we can all agree that a big part of the activities of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in its current form is to promote and teach Canadian history, including the history of New France as well as more modern Canadian history.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate and how it will be altered by Bill C-49.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-49, which would create the new Canadian museum of history. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of its history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

The Canadian museum of history would strive to be a national and international destination, but would also focus on its role as a leader, a hub in the network of Canadian history museums and a centre of expertise. The Canadian Museum of Civilization has always had an international role as a knowledge-creating institution. This will not change. Indeed, the museum will continue to conduct scientific research and share its expertise on collections, management, research and conservation with other museums around the world.

It is important that we all understand that the focus of research in the archaeology, history and ethnology sections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization has always been the advancement of Canada's human and military history. The new mandate confirms that focus and nothing in this legislation will diminish that role in any way.

In fact, it is expected that the museum would create its activities working closely with the network of Canadian museums to make its national collection available through loans and travelling exhibitions. It would also provide a permanent venue and an additional 7,500 square feet at the new museum for other Canadian museums to showcase their collections and contribute to the national narrative.

I am pleased that these partnerships would do four things. First, they would further the collective telling of Canadian history. Second, they would leverage strengths of partners, for example, in the area of loans expertise and exhibitions. Third, they would focus on gaps in the collection. Finally, they would achieve financial benefits, such as cost-sharing and joint initiatives. Partnerships would promote collaboration and co-productions, the sharing of artifacts, the development of online projects and the exchange of professional expertise.

I would like to outline how the museum plans to establish three levels of partnership. These plans include a history museum network, a museum affiliate program and formalized partnerships with federal organizations and other key public and private institutions.

First, the history museum network would consist of several of the largest museums in the country, museums that have significant capacity and have the mandate to cover the history of Canada. There will be many advantages to members of this network, including a venue at the new museum where exhibitions and programs produced by members can be showcased, the ability to receive exhibitions and programs developed by the Canadian museum of history, opportunities for co-production of exhibitions and programs, visual brand association and identity and links to the Canadian museum of history and Canadian War Museum websites.

Second, the museum affiliate program would consist of a group of generally smaller institutions across the country that, subject to criteria and standards, would be able to borrow or co-operate on collections, programs and exhibits. These advantages to affiliates would include, but not be limited to, the ability to borrow collections, programs and travelling exhibits from the Canadian museum of history, the ability to partner with the Canadian museum of history as a research affiliate and opportunities to showcase affiliate-produced exhibitions at the Canadian museum of history.

I am particularly excited that the smaller museums will be able to borrow collections at the national level. This means that these exhibits, which display our rich history, will travel across the country. Also, affiliates will be invited to an annual affiliates conference in conjunction with the Canadian Museums Association, which will be an opportunity to share expertise and ideas that will benefit all.

Third, the Canadian museum of history would have formalized partnerships with key public and private organizations. It would play a leadership role as the hub in a network of Canadian history museums.

I am pleased to relay that all of the partner museums will have a role to play in shaping and reshaping the network over time. It will be a collaborative effort with local museums being able to contribute and share knowledge.

The museum network will be able to take coordinated, common approaches to the history and exhibits of key moments in Canadian history. These moments will not be defined at the national level, but rather defined by local museums from one end of the country to the other.

The years leading up to 2017 will provide many great opportunities for our history museums across the country to celebrate Canadian history. The millions of people who visit Canadian museums of history will not only see exhibits created by staff at that museum, but they will see exhibits created by museums of all sizes in all part of Canada. They will, perhaps for the first time, be presented with key historical events, people, experiences and objects that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

We all have museums in our ridings. In many ridings, museums are housed in an old mill or factory, or maybe an old school or train station. In these museums, there are often not any employees, only volunteers. These are people who may not be recognized around the world for their expertise in museums, but who are certainly recognized in their communities for their dedication to doing their best to conserve and display objects for future generations.

The network of Canadian history museums is just one of the reasons why I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-49. This is one of the most important bills before us.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for appropriately raising that point.

One of the legitimate fears regarding Bill C-49 is that it will become a symbol of an inward-looking attitude. The Museum of Civilization, as we currently know it, is probably one of the Canadian museums, if not the Canadian museum, with the greatest international reputation. We would be depriving ourselves of that and would stop developing our international brand in order to turn inward and focus on our history. Not that we should stop studying our history, far from it, but we would be studying Canadian history without viewing it in a distinctly broader international context.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very keen to rise today to voice the opinion of many Canadians, especially many of this country's historians, and to debate the Conservative government's Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History.

In my humble opinion, this is not a very good or a very welcome idea. Of course, that is quite the opposite of what we have been hearing for a number of hours, but I believe that I have some points that deserve to be shared, considered and discussed.

Why is it a bad idea? First of all, I strongly suspect that the Conservative government—particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage—does not know what history is, who makes it, and the issues related to teaching, education and Canadian history. In fact, the last few minutes of debate have bolstered my convictions. I am talking about history with a capital “H” because we are talking about the science, not Canadian history.

Perhaps there is an excuse. After all, he is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, not the minister of history. That would explain the confusion because when we talk about heritage, it is easier to draw up a list of cultural assets and items that attest to the identity of a country, a people or a nation.

Historical objects are a part of heritage. However, history itself, the historical narrative and the Canadian identity are not as easy to put on display. If that were the case, historians would have stopped producing works about Canada's colonization, the establishment of the parliamentary system in our country or the emancipation of women in our society.

The fact that we continue to debate these phenomena is proof that our understanding of them is not static. When I say “we”, I am referring to historians rather than politicians. By putting these phenomena in a museum, we run the risk of ending debate and dissimulating the reality.

In even clearer terms, creating a museum with objects that represent Canadian history and identity stems from a particularly dated concept or vision of history. There are not many historians left in Canada or the world who describe the science of history in this way.

Many historians would say that this idea could only come from a conservator. I mean that in the sense of a conservator who wants to preserve something in its existing state and perhaps even wants to have something preserved by the state. Who knows? The idea that history is an unchangeable, written, eternal truth that lends itself to being put in a museum is an idea that no longer holds true in this day and age. That goes without saying.

There may be one exception. There was a major history museum project in France, championed by President Sarkozy. However, after much opposition, the project completely fell apart. No, we should not be following France's example. I agree. However, when it comes to museums, it could be useful to look at what our partners are doing. France does have a certain amount of museum expertise that warrants our respect.

It seems that the history museum was, by his own admission, the Minister of Canadian Heritage's idea. I heard him say it. Since when do politicians deal with history-related issues? Leave that to the historians.

As politicians, we may have the luxury—perhaps even the duty—of creating history through our actions and our contributions, but we should never impose our perspective on history. Politicians are involved in commemorating and celebrating historic events, but they are not involved in history with a capital H. Those issues are far too serious for us as politicians. It needs to be said: we are not experts in teaching history.

For pity's sake, let us leave history to historians and museums to museologists, or at the very least, let us consult them before going any further. Moreover, the Canadian Association of University Teachers expressed a number of misgivings, particularly about the way things were done. The members of the association said:

We call on the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to stop its process of redesigning that museum until a panel of distinguished figures in historical and museum work is created and has an opportunity to prepare recommendations on a more appropriate direction for re-developing this outstanding heritage site.

Note the use of the verb “call on”. This is rather strong language. The members are not saying, “we ask”, “we advise” or “we suggest”, but rather, “we call on the Department of Canadian Heritage”.

Clearly, therefore, it is not simply a matter creating a new museum out of thin air, a museum that will grow out of nothing. It is about transforming a museum that already exists and that has already acquired a sterling reputation.

As I stated, these issues are far too serious for the humble politicians that we are. Let us leave history to historians and museums to museologists. Let us allow them to decide among themselves how best to define the parameters, the strategic directions, the problems and the subject matter that will be exhibited at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will eventually be renamed. The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation is a crown corporation set up under the Museums Act. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is therefore responsible for it and the act determines the museum’s mandate.

Before changing a winning formula—one of the most-visited museums in Canada, and certainly one of the best-known outside our borders—why does the minister not consult the various interested parties more broadly? For example, he might consult the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians and the first nations, who are heavily involved in and well represented at the current Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Once the announcement was made, public consultations were held in about a dozen Canadian cities, but the consultation process seemed bogus because the decision was already made. Earlier, I heard that contracts had already been signed. I therefore wonder what we are doing right now in the House.

The examples of decisions made on this issue unfortunately leave me no ray of hope. The sudden closing and hasty dismantling of the Canadian Postal Museum show the total lack of transparency around the process. There were tightly controlled consultations, which had limited success. However, the consultations did not allow Canadians to question the decision to transform the museum, despite opposition from a large number of Canadians who traveled to take part in them. The minister is intervening in an area that is not his cup of tea, and without extensive consultation with experts.

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said I had total confidence in this bill and in the future of the museum. Over the weekend, just when I was telling him about the bill, a friend of mine who is a historian said the following. I am quoting him, because I would have great difficulty putting it any better: “It is difficult to express an opinion on the real intentions of a Conservative government that is as reluctant to show exactly what is underneath this matter as it is to show exactly what is underneath women’s clothes.” We spent the rest of the time just having a friendly discussion.

There is another aspect of this bill that bothers me. With the change in the mandate and the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the public is being introduced to the idea that political power, that is, the Conservative government of Canada, may decide on its own about the content and significance of the exhibits that will be presented there, or at least strongly influence them. I find the possibility of partisan politics interfering in a world-renowned scientific and cultural institution to be absolutely unbearable.

The artist that I am, or that I am modestly trying to be, is completely averse to any use of culture and the arts for partisan purposes. While scientists and artists look at the world with creativity and critical judgment, the political world is generally quite risk-adverse, especially the party opposite.

As my time is quickly coming to an end, I will leave out some of the arguments that I had kept in reserve. I will conclude by saying that it is because I am certain that Canadian history and Canadian historians deserve better that I cannot support such a bill.

The role of a government in the area of culture is to allow debates to be held and to provide locations for meetings, research and expression. I cannot support this partisan initiative, as it promotes Conservative symbols, such as an attachment to the monarchy, an insistence on military values in a civilian context, an inordinate celebration of old wars, and so on.

This is a deliberate strategy designed to rewrite Canadian identity. This is not the role of the House of Commons, and it is not the role of a member of Parliament or a minister.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.